9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter paying the amount as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 57-CC of the Central Excise Rules. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under : - 3. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of machine rolled cigarettes by using duty paid cut tobacco as raw material. However, during the manufacture of cigarettes, tobacco refuse in the form of dust and winnowings was produced which was classifiable under sub-heading 2401.10 of the CETA. They were availing Modvat credit in respect of the duty paid cut tobacco used as input in the manufacture of the cigarettes as per provisions of Rule 57-A of the Rules. They sought permission from the competent authority for the clearance of tobacco refuse at nil rate of duty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f sub-rule (1) of Rule 57-CC had been rightly invoked against them. 7. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. 8. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of machine rolled cigarettes. The input used by them for this final product was duty paid tobacco. They availed the Modvat credit in respect of the said duty paid cut tobacco. During the manufacture of the final product (cigarettes) tobacco refuse was also generated/produced and they had been marketing and selling the same to different buyers on receipts of price. 9. It also remains undisputed that the tobacco refuse is classifiable under sub-heading 2401.10 of the CETA attracting nil rate of duty. Sub-rule (18) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder which tobacco refuse was classifiable, provided nil rate of duty, but that did not legally entitle the appellants to have double benefit i.e. one of the Modvat credit on the input and other of marketing and selling the tobacco refuse, for price in the market. In that event, they were in fact legally bound to adjust the credit in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 57-CC of the Rules. The said sub-rule reads as under :- "Where a manufacturer is engaged in the manufacture of any final product which is chargeable to duty as well as in any other final product which is exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon or is chargeable to nil rate of duty and the manufacturer takes credit of the specified duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is perfectly valid. 12. The provisions of Rule 57-D to which reference has been made by the counsel are not at all relevant for the decision of the issue in question in the present case. In the instant case the credit of duty on the duty paid input (cut tobacco) was not denied to the appellants by the Revenue when they brought the same in their factory premises for the manufacture of machine rolled cigarettes. They had been only asked to make adjustment of the credit already taken on the inputs and pay the amount as per the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 57-CC of the Rules as they were marketing and selling for price the tobacco refuse generated/produced out of the inputs on which they had already taken the credit. 13. The r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
