TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been passed in respect of the two appellant assessees, both sides agree that the issue involved is common and these cases also came before the Tribunal twice earlier and both sides point out that on those occasions also the cases were decided by passing a common order. Hence, we take up all the four appeals together for hearing and disposal. 2. In case of M/s. Manasi Steels (P) Ltd., the impugned period is from 19-5-98 to 22-9-01 and in the case of M/s. Camco Steels (P) Ltd., the impugned period is from 1-2-97 to 22-9-01. Both the appellant assessees have manufactured small agricultural implements for which they claimed classification under Chapter 84 as agricultural machinery and claimed nil rate of duty as prescribed under the relate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants states that the demands which have been confirmed under the second order on 27-10-05 are the correct amounts which have been worked out excluding the traded goods in respect of both the cases and in the case of M/s. Manasi Steels (P) Ltd., this has been worked out also denying SSI benefit for the period 2001-2002, which he states, is acceptable to the appellants, though by denying such exemption, the duty liability has gone up from what was demanded in the first adjudication order. He, however, very strongly opposes further enhancement in the duty demand made by the orders passed for the third time after second remand by the Tribunal, on the ground that only the appellant assessees were before the Tribunal and in the absence of any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xemption from the licensing control well before the departmental authorities had initiated action by way of search etc., and hence, there was no need for following the Modvat Credit Procedure earlier on the part of the appellants, since according to them the impugned goods were not dutiable at all. He also cites the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Formica India Division v. Collector of Central Excise - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511 (S.C.), which held that consequent upon rejection of claim for non-dutiability, the assessee should be given the benefit of set-off in respect of input duty credit and the same cannot be denied on technical ground of non-compliance with the procedure. We reproduce below Paragraph 2 of the said decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nefit on the technical ground that the point of time when they could have done so had elapsed and they could not be permitted to comply with Rule 56A after that stage had passed. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellants should be permitted to avail of the benefit of the notification by complying at this stage with Rule 56A to the satisfaction of the Department. 9. It is clear from the aforecited decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court that the procedural lacuna, such as, non-filing of the declaration at the material time cannot be a ground for denying input duty credit to the appellants. As regards the objection raised by the adjudicating Commissioner regarding duty paying documents, the ld. Sr. Advocate states that all the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned final product. The ld. SDR states that these reports can be relied upon for taking a decision in these cases as these have been prepared after verifying the original copies of the invoices. In the course of hearing today, the ld. SDR and the concerned official have also done a sample check of the copies of the invoices available with the appellants with the figures given in the aforesaid two reports and they have found the same to be correct. In view of these reports, there also does not appear to be any doubt regarding the use of the input materials in the manufacture of the final product. 11. Keeping in view the ratio of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Formica India Division (cited supra) and taking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 166/- Rs. 88,31,773/- : Duty on inputs of goods cleared under small scale exemption Rs. 22,49,635/- Rs. 1,10,81,408/- Rs. 1,39,33,361/- The duty credits for these calculations have been taken from the above-cited two reports submitted by the Assistant Commissioner/Superintendent (Preventive) to the Commissionerate Head Quarters in the year 2005. 12. From the above calculation, we find that in respect of M/s. Mansi Steels Pvt. Ltd., the duty credit available is Rs. 2,46,21,497/- as against the admitted duty demand of Rs. 2,29,50,981/- as was quantified in the order of adjudication dated 27-10-05. In the case of M/s. Camco Steels Pvt. Ltd., the duty credit ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
