TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation claims by the buyers, the Appellant raised bills and paid duties and thus there was neither any delay nor any question of interest. (b) Prior to acceptance by the buyers, the escalation claims were mere claims. Lodging of a claim itself did not confer any right to receive the amount. (c) Under Sections 11A and 11AB interest was payable only from the first day of the month succeeding the month in which duty ought to have been paid and thus the liability for interest could arise only if duty was not paid after acceptance of claims by the buyers. This was not the position in the present case. (d) In the present case, the undisputed factual position is that in the same month in which the escalation claim was accepted by the buyers, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lds that duty paid by job workers could not be treated as payment of Central Excise duty. He also holds that assessable value in the hands of the job workers should not have included the value of old cylinders (Page 80/I). This reason is totally untenable and contrary to law. (c) Whether the activities of job workers amounted to manufacture and whether they were liable to pay duty and what was to be the assessable value were matters to be decided by Central Excise Authorities having jurisdiction over job workers and Commissioner in the Appellant's case had no jurisdiction. The Appellant was fully entitled to take credit of the entire duties actually paid by the job workers. (d) Appellant's submissions on this issue have been recorded in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of reversing any Cenvat Credit on the amount of Debit Notes. This issue is also covered in favour of the Appellant by a decision reported in 2007 (212) E.L.T. 369 ( Brown Kraft Inds. Ltd. v. CCE ). 4. Issue No. 4: Cenvat Credit of Rs. 3,63,639/- on Debit Notes raised for "deduct ion under purchase". This is similar to Issue No. 3 above. 5. issue No. 5 : Cenvat Credit of Rs. 2,66,887/- and Education Cess of Rs. 1,588/- on Debit Notes under the head "other deductions". This is similar to Issue No. 3 above. 6. Issue No. 6 : Cenvat Credit of Rs. 4,01,476/- and Education Cess of Rs. 5,442/- on Debit Notes under I he head "External Processing Charges": (a) These Debit Notes were on account of rejection, wastage and other reasons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere raised on suppliers of inputs on account of inferior and/or arising of excess wastage, delay in delivery etc. 6 Debit Notes were raised on job workers for poor quality of job works done by them. 13 Debit Notes related to non-excisable goods. None of the said Debit Notes had any effect of any nature on any assessable value or duty payment. (b) The Commissioner has recorded the submissions by has wrongly rejected the same by holding that these were not backed by any law provision (Page 88/I). (c) 23 Debit Notes were raised on the Appellant's buyer M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited. These Debit Notes were raised on various accounts, such as, wastage incurred for initial run, expenses for trial run, excess wastage incurred etc. and were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant was not at all to able to pay any duty on the value of the said Debit Notes. (d) 12 Debit Notes related to labour charges of four workers pro vided to DIC India Limited. The Appellant buys printing ink from DIC India Limited n principal to principal basis. Due to shortage of workers at the said depot of DIC India Limited, for handling, loading etc. of the materials supplied to the Appellant, it deputed four workers to the depot of DIC India Limited and on this account the Appellant charged from them a sum of Rs. 17,000/- per month. These Debit Notes had nothing to do with any payment of duty or availment of any Cenvat Credit." 2. The ld. Sr. Advocate also pleads the grounds of limitation and states that the appellants have alway ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e inputs. Hence, we are of the view that there is no requirement of any duty to be paid in respect of such receipts nor any requirement of reversal the credit taken on inputs on which duty has been paid. We find that the appellants have on their own have paid an amount of Rs. 2,95,2401- against the demand confirmed. The appellants have explained that they have paid this amount in respect of Debit Notes, which they could not co-relate due to passing of long time and also partly on account of inputs which were returned to the suppliers being rejected materials. In view of our findings as above and the fact that whatever amount is payable by the appellants have been paid in time, we confirm the prima facie view taken by us at the time of passi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
