TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rfumery products and air fresheners. While perfumer products manufactured by them were claimed to have been manufactured without aid of power and hence not dutiable, the air fresheners were dutiable and the applied for Central Excise registration on 29-11-1995 which was granted to them. They also opened PLA account on 11-12-1995 and deposited a sum of Rs. 75,000/- in the same. They also filed a Modvat declaration under Rule 57G expressing their intention to avail of the Modvat credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of air fresheners and also filed a classification list in respect of the air fresheners so manufactured by them. 2. As the perfumes manufactured by them were without aid of power and therefore fully exempted, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, duty demand of Rs. 87,559/- in respect of air fresheners and Rs. 85,604/- in respect of perfumes was sustained along with a penalty of Rs. 1,73,163/-. 3. Heard both sides. 4. We have considered the submissions. We find that it is the appellant's claim that perfumes were manufactured by them without aid of power and an intimation to this effect was also given by them to the department vide their letter dated 15-12-1995 and the revenue has not been able to produce any evidence to show that power was used in the manufacture of perfumes. The revenue places its reliance on the statement of the purchaser who has stated that the perfume was manufactured with the aid of power by his another supplier but could not say how the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder or direction of the Appellate Tribunal or any Court or in any other provision of this Act or the rules made thereunder, [every person who is liable to pay duty under this Act or the rules made thereunder and has collected any amount in excess of the duty assessed or determined and paid on any excisable goods under this Act or the rules made thereunder from the buyer of such goods] in any manner as representing duty of excise, shall forthwith pay the amount so collected to the credit of the Central Government." 5. In terms of above provision amount collected in excess of duty assessed or determined or paid in excess alone is required to be paid to the Central Government. Once it is held that the goods manufactured by the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that it has been the consistent view of the Tribunal that credit cannot be denied for procedural lapses once the receipt of inputs and its use in manufacture of finished product is not denied. A decision on this aspect has been given by the Apex Court in the case of Formica India Division v. Collector of Central Excise - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511 (S.C.) which relate to proforma credit which was on a similar footing as that of modvat. We accordingly hold that the Modvat credit is admissible subject to production to duty paying documents. We accordingly remand the matter to the original authority to look into the facts whether the inputs were received and used in the manufacture of final products and into the duty paying documents which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
