TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iers. I also find that the finished goods manufactured out of returned goods were subsequently cleared on payment of duty as normal clearance. D3 declaration intimation was duly filed upon the officers visited the unit on 10.2.2000 as recorded in para-2 of the SCN. It is found that from the production records that appellants have cleared the goods under rule 173H from the fresh stock. SCN should have been issued within 6 months whereas the department issued SCN on 10.2.2004. Hence there is no suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of duty. Therefore, demand raised on the goods cleared under Rule173H is hit by limitation and liable to be set aside and equal penalty imposed on the appellant is also liable to be set aside. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise Rules, 1944. The appellant has received the raw materials from various companies for reprocessing under Rule 173H and Rule 57F (4) and got it repaired. Instead of repairing or reprocessing, appellants have cleared the excisable goods by using the inputs which were available in from their stock. Therefore, they have violated the provisions of Rule 173H and Rule 57F (4). Adjudicating authority confirmed duty of ₹ 8,73,015/- and also imposed equivalent penalty of ₹ 10,000/- under Rule 173Q. Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected their appeal. 3. Ld. Advocate submits that appellants are manufacturers of aluminum ingots, rods, sheets. They used the raw material, scrap and other materials which are re-melted in the furnace and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d even earlier to the receipt of the inputs under rule 57F (4) during the period 13.5.99 to 16.5.99 which clearly shows that the appellants processed the goods for which they supplied from the fresh stock which are manufactured out of their invoice. Therefore duty has been rightly demanded which is also admitted by the appellants. Appellants cleared the goods even before reprocessing was done. Appellants have cleared the original goods in the guise of repair and reprocessed goods. He relied on Tribunal's decision in the case of National Conductors Vs CCE ST, Daman - 2014-TIOL 553-CESTAT-AHM. 5. After hearing both sides, I find that there is no dispute on the fact that appellant admitted that they have supplied the goods under Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey have filed D3 declaration intimation was duly filed upon the officers visited the unit on 10.2.2000 as recorded in para-2 of the SCN. It is found that from the production records that appellants have cleared the goods under rule 173H from the fresh stock. SCN should have been issued within 6 months whereas the department issued SCN on 10.2.2004. Hence there is no suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of duty. Therefore, demand raised on the goods cleared under Rule173H is hit by limitation and liable to be set aside and equal penalty imposed on the appellant is also liable to be set aside. 7. However, I find that appellants are liable for under penalty under Rule 173Q as they have violated the procedure. Therefore, app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
