TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... At times, the inputs are removed as such i.e. without subjecting them to any manufacturing process. Issue arose as to what is the appellant s liability in such cases. The appellant contended that they were not required to make any fresh assessment of the inputs so cleared. They were only required to reverse the credit taken in respect of such inputs. Under the impugned orders it was held that the inputs cleared as such should be subjected to the process of assessment and appropriate duty paid. Consequently, differential duty demand has also been raised. 3. The appellants contend in these appeals that the impugned orders are contrary to the settled law. Learned Counsel for the appellant took us through the Larger Bench decision of this Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under Rule 57A. As has been observed by the majority in the Larger Bench decision in American Auto Services case the provision is intended to provide the same benefit availed of by the Revenue where the rate of duty has gone down during the interregnum . Learned Counsel also submitted that under Chapter X Procedure also assessees were eligible to take credit of duty paid on inputs and the requirement under that rule had come up for consideration before this Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that what was required in those cases was to return the amount equivalent to the duty on the inputs. (Order No. 251/89-A of the Tribunal in Appeal No. E/495/91-A). According to the learned Counsel, the introduction of new Cenvat provision has not made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing final products to duty, equivalent to the duty paid on the inputs. That is not a provision for levying duty on goods which had once been cleared on payment of duty. Provisions for levy of duty and valuation continue to be Sections 3 and 4 (or 4A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The inputs in question were manufactured by other manufacturers and those manufacturers had paid appropriate duty at the time of removal of these goods. The appellant had only taken credit of the duty paid by those manufacturers as those goods were supposed to be used as inputs in the production of final products. The duty liability of those inputs remain, already determined and discharged at the time of their original removal. There is no provision in Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
