TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of duty paid on capital goods. The appellants have been filing their monthly returns in which they have been declaring the availment of credit on inputs and capital goods and clearances effected by them on payment of duty for export and for domestic consumption. Revenue proceeded against the appellants by invoking the extended period. For the period from July, 1998 to June, 2002 on the ground that they had irregularly availed credit on the inputs and capital goods and utilized the same for payment of duty on exempted products, which were either exported or cleared locally on payment of duty. A further Show Cause Notice dated 4-8-2003 was issued for the period from July, 2002 to March, 2003 proposing to disallow Cenvat credit amounting to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) Once the appellants have paid the duty on the final product and such payment has not been disputed by the department, the credit of duty paid on capital goods and inputs cannot be denied. The following decisions were relied on. (a) CCE v. Casio Bharti Mobile Communications Ltd. - 1999 (112) E.L.T. 1052. (b) CCE v. Casio Bharti Mobile Communications Ltd. - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 128. (iii) When the goods are cleared under export under bond or on payment of duty, then the goods cannot be considered to have been exempted from payment of excise duty. The following decisions were relied on. (a) Alpha Drugs India Ltd. v. CCE - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 783. (b) CCE v. Alpha Drugs India Ltd. - 2002 (140) E.L.T. 43. (c) CCE v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that they would not be claiming exemption from payment of duty, etc., longer period cannot be invoked. There was no actually suppression of the facts, as the goods were received under AR-3As and the departmental officers were issuing the re-warehousing certificates. The following case laws were relied on. (a) Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. v. CCE - 2005 (188) E.L.T. 149 (S.C.) = 2005-TIOL-118-SC-CX. (b) Tony Electronics Ltd. v. CCE- 2004 (176) E.L.T. 398. (c) Ashoka Spintex Ltd. v. CCE - 2004 (171) E.L.T. 59. 5. The learned SDR reiterated the order-in-original. 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The Original Authority denied Modvat credit on inputs and capital goods on the ground that exemption was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
