GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (8) TMI 147 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2015 (8) TMI 147 - CESTAT MUMBAI - 2015 (323) E.L.T. 627 (Tri. - Mumbai) - Refusal to grant of permission to remove the goods for further processing under Rule 16C of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for financial year 2015-16 - Held that:- Appellant has been granted the permission under Rule 16C of the Rules to remove the goods without payment of duty for carrying out certain processes not amounting to manufacture from the financial year 2011-12 till 2014-15. The only ground for refusal to grant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e permission. In view of these circumstances, we hold that denial of permission under Rule 16C is not legally sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/85960/15 - Final Order No. A/2167/2015-WZB/EB - Dated:- 3-7-2015 - P K Jain, Member (T) And S S Garg, Member (J),JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Puneet Bansal, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri V K Agarwal, Addl. Comm. (AR) ORDER Per: S S Garg: 1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. PUN-EXCUS-004-COM-10/14-15 dated .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

falling under Tariff 39 & 48 of the CETA, 1985 at its Pune unit. It has got permission of the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, to remove the goods from the factory of manufacturer without payment of excise duty from Pune unit to Bangalore unit from the financial year 2011-12 till 2014-15. The appellant has alleged that they had strictly adhered to the procedures and compliances in relation to clearance of goods to Bangalore unit in terms of the provisions of Rule 16C of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nly on the ground that the appellant's case cannot be considered to be falling under the category of "deserving case" as is prescribed under the Board's Circular No.844/02/2007-CX dated 31/01/2007. Secondly, the respondent in the impugned order has given a finding that the appellant has violated the prescribed procedure and conditions of Rule 16C as well as Rule 12AA of the Rules. Now the appellant has challenged the impugned order before us. 4. The learned Counsel for the appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed below: "Rule 16C - Special procedure for removal of excisable goods for carrying out certain processes - The Commissioner of Central Excise may by special order and subject to such conditions as may be specified by him permit a manufacturer to remove excisable goods manufactured in his factory, without payment of duty, for carrying out tests or any other process not amounting to manufacture to any other premises whether or not registered and after carrying out such tests or any such othe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/2011 had specified the detailed conditions for removal and accountal of goods by the appellant and the appellant has strictly followed the procedure mentioned in the said letter which includes maintenance of proper records of dispatch, receipt and inventory of goods both at the Pune unit as well as Bangalore unit, clearance of goods on payment of applicable excise duty from the Bangalore unit, clearance of waste/scrap from Bangalore unit on payment of excise duty, etc. 5.1 The learned Counsel f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e learned Counsel further submitted that Rule 16C is a beneficial piece of legislation which permits a manufacturer to remove excisable goods manufactured in his factory without payment of duty for carrying out test or any other process not amounting to manufacture. The said discretion must be exercised by the department to benefit the assessee and facilitate trade and manufacturer of goods. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the following decision, wherein it was held that the a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

terial plus 10%. However, the appellant has paid much more duty on the said goods as the duty is paid on transaction value resulting in payment of higher duty to the tune of approximately ₹ 1.76 crore for the period April 2014 to December 2014. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the respondent has tried to support the impugned order. 7. He submitted that the procedure as envisaged under Rule 16C of the Rule granting permission to remove the goods w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in negative. Further more, it is pertinent to mention that while passing the impugned order, the learned Commissioner allowed a grace period of three months beyond 31/03/2015 for which the appellant could continue to operate under Rule 16C subject to the conditions and procedures prescribed vide letter dated 14/09/2011 of Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Pune with an added stipulation that compliance to conditions and prescribed procedure would be checked in for the month of April, May and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version