TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was in respect of the inputs on which credit has been availed were cleared as such after reversing credit - The case of the Revenue is that as per the Provisions of Rule 57AB (b) the reversal of credit in respect of the inputs cleared is not sufficient and the appellants are liable to pay the duty on inputs of capital goods by treating the same as manufactured goods. - The reversal of credit availed at the time of receipt of inputs is sufficient at the time of clearance of inputs as such from the factory of production hence the demand is not sustainable - E/655-658/2004 - A-346-349/KOL/2010 - Dated:- 20-4-2010 - S/Shri S.S. Kang, Vice-President and M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY: Shri kiwi R.agahavan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri B.B. Aganval, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. - Heard both sides. 2. Appellant filed these appeals against the common impugned order whereby the credit of Rs. 2.57 crores was denied on various grounds. 3. Four show cause notices were issued to the appellant for denial of credit of Rs. 3.39 crores. The adjudicating authority allowed credit of Rs. 82.00 laths and disallowed credit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icant submitted that in case the matter is remanded, the appellant will produce the in voices. 5. In respect of denial of credit of Rs. 61,22,262.00 the contention is that the inputs were received under the cover of invoices and the credit was availed and subsequently the manufacturer of inputs paid the differential duty. A certificate has been issued by the Supdt. of Central Excise referring payment of differential duty and the appellant taken credit of the differential duty in respect of the invoice which is already received in the factory. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. CCE by final order No. A-127/KOL/10, dated 17-2-2010 [2010 (255) E.L.T. 129 (Tribunal)]. whereby in similar situation after referring the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CCE v. Home Ashok Leyland reported in 2001 (134) E.L.T. 647 (Mad.) allowed the credit which was availed on the strength of certificate issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise. 6. In respect of the demand of Rs. 1,11,35,767.00 the contention of appellant is that as per the Provisions of Rule 57AB (b) of Central Excise Rule, 1944, the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the inputs are required to pay the duly of excise leviable thereon as if such Inputs have been manufactured in the said factory, in case the inputs are cleared as such. Ld. Jt. CDR submitted that the issue before the Larger Bench in the case of CCE v. ABB (supra) was in respect of Rule 57B of Central Excise Rules where there was a proviso that in case the inputs were removed as such, the duty of excise was not to be less than the amount of credit taken. The contention is that under Rule 57AB(b) which was relevant in the present case, there was no such proviso, only. manufacturer has to pay the duty of excise leviable on such goods if such goods have been manufactured in the said factory therefore the demand is rightly mad?. The contention is that in the case of Southern Iron Steel Co. Ltd. (supra) the dispute was in respect of the capital goods which were returned to the manufacturer in terms of Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules therefore the ratio is not applicable on the facts of the present case. 8. In respect of denial of credit of Rs. 41,47,609.00, we find that appellant submitted 54 invoices under cover of a letter dated 16-11-2000 to the jurisdictional superintendent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the cover of an invoice prescribed under Rule 52A". Prior to this Rule 57F, Central Excise Rules also provides that in case the inputs regarding which credit of duty has been availed by the manufacturer are removed from the factory as such inputs are to be treated as manufactured in the said factory. However, there was a proviso which provides that where such in puts are removed from the factory on payment of such duty of excise which will not be less than the amount of credit. The provisions of Rule 57F of Central Excise Rules were interpreted by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. American Auto Services reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 71 (Tribunal) and the Tribunal held that in such a situation reversal of credit is sufficient when inputs are cleared as such. This view was again affirmed by the Larger Bench in the case of CCE v. ABB (supra). The appeal by the Revenue against this decision was dismissed as not pressed. The same is reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. A149 (S.C.). 11. We find that as the Provisions of Rule 57F of Central Excise Rules were interpreted by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. American Auto Services [ (81) E.L.T. 71 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
