2014 (2) TMI 852

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ORDER Per: P. G. Chacko; These applications seek waiver and stay. The impugned demand on the appellants is a demand of Special Additional Duty (SAD) amounting to Rs. 64,20,716/- confirmed under the Proviso to Section 11(A1) of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 for the period from October 2005 to November 2008. This demand is on certain goods imported by th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... us, the learned consultant for the appellants submits that more than the amount of CENVAT credit was paid as duty of excise on the goods at the time of clearance after importation. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Addl. Commissioner(A.R.) that even this claim has not been established by the assessee before the adjudicating authority. We have considered these submissions and have also per .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es produced by the assessee did not incorporate therein the element of SAD. The adverse findings recorded against the assessee appear to be consequential to lack of correlation and are not based on to total rebuttal of the assessee's contention. In this view of the matter, we take into account the consistent claim of the appellants to have paid more duty than the sum total of CVD and SAD paid on t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X