TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified in reversing the order passed by the Commissioner though manufacturer had not reversed cenvat credit and yet availed of concessional rate of duty which was not available in view of Notification NO. 06/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 as amended by Notification No. 45/2003-CE dated 14.05.2001? 3. In this appeal, the following facts have been stated by the Revenue. 3.1 The respondent is engaged in manufacture of ceramic glaze titles classifiable under Chapter No. 69 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondent is availing benefit of exemption Notification No. 06/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 as amended by Notification NO. 45/2003-CE dated 14.05.2003, in respect of clearances of his final product, viz., Cerami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on inputs (in terms of Explanation 2 to the rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules) was availed as credit of duty on capital goods, with the sole intention to utilize the same for payment of duty on finished goods, i.e. with intent to evade payment of central excise duty. By acting in the manner, the respondent had committed violation of various provisions of Central Excise law and by resorting to mis-declaration the respondent had wrongly availed the benefit of exemption by paying duty at concessional rate of duty in terms of notification No. 6/2002 ibid, in violation of the stipulated condition. Therefore, the exemption contained in Notification No. 6/2002- ibid was not admissible to the respondent and differential duty not paid by the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set aside the order of the Commissioner and granted the relief to the respondent assessee with consequential reliefs. 6. This appeal has been filed by the Excise Department challenging the common order of the Tribunal dated 12.11.2009, which was also a subject matter before this Court in tax appeal no. 1441 of 2010 with other allied matters. Tax Appeal No. 1442 of 2012 was decided by Division Bench of this Court on 17.3.2011. The instant appeal was, however, admitted on 17.03.2011 and while admitting it was observed that the respondent manufacturer had never reversed cenvat credit taken . Though as a matter of fact, the respondent-assessee had already alleviated the liability in reversing out amount of ₹ 4,71,007/- alongwith inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
