Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 160 - CESTAT MUMBAINon-payment of duty - Revenue argued that the appellants were aware of the revision of price and chose not to pay the differential duty on their own - Rule 9 (1) (b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Rule 6 of the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of duty for manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 - Held that: - A perusal of Rule 6 clearly shows that the duty under the Rule is for the goods received by the manufacturer and not in respect of goods sold by the manufacturer - It is apparent that in terms of Rule 6, the duty is paid on behalf of the supplier of inputs under the said procedure prescribed under Rule 6 of the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of duty for manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001. Since the goods was received in the factory, the respondents were entitled to the credit of the same. A perusal of the show-cause notice shows that while the duty has been demanded for diversion of the goods received under Rule 19 (2) of the Central Excise Rules. No allegation that the said goods were used by the appellant for other purposes. Demand set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|