9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per Ashok Jindal The appellant M/s. L.G. Electronics Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of colour television sets (CTVs). They import various electronic components for the purpose. On import of these inputs, the appellants pay duties of customs including CVD and SAD leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. These inputs are removed to job workers/ancillary units by reversi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the appellants under Rule 15(2) of the CCR read with Section 11 AC of the Act. 2. It is submitted that the assessee was using a software for computation of duty liability to be discharged at the time of removal of components for making PCBs and that this software had been programmed when the components in question did not attract SAD. With effect from 1.3.2006, the exemption from SAD to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngly. Therefore, the demand of interest and imposition of penalty were not justified. 3. Ld. Counsel further submits that in their own unit at Pune using the software in similar facts, this Tribunal has held that the demand is barred by limitation therefore, levy of interest and penalty were also set aside reported in 2010 (255) ELT 135 (Tribunal) in the case of L.G. Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccount. During the material period, they removed such inputs for getting the PCBs manufactured for further manufacture of CTVs. We find that the appellants had short reversed the impugned credit and the same remained in their CENVAT account. They reversed the same before issue of the show cause notice. Had the amount been correctly reversed, the job worker could have taken credit of it to pay duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
