TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time of removal would not be in conformity with the statute as the goods have already borne the burden of duty of excise. Further, the genesis of the reference to the Larger Bench was also a matter of consideration. Above all else was the factum of rescinding of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 with effect from 1st July 2001 and subsequent notification of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. Taking note of a clarification issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs in circular no. 6/39/2000-CX-I dated 1st July 2002 for handling removal of inputs effected under erstwhile provisions by categorizing them for determining value under section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the subsequent clarification in circular no. 813/10/2005 dated 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uivalent amount. The erstwhile Rule 57AB(1B) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 governed such removals till 28th February 2001, erstwhile Rule 57AB(1C) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 between 1st March and 30th June 2001and rule 3(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001 thereafter. According to the notice dated 29th January 2002 issued to M/s Britannia Industries Ltd, the duty liability was required to have been discharged by re-assessment of the input after including landing cost, other incidental expenses and a further 15% on the input cost in accordance with rule 8 read with rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2000 leading to short-payment of ` 36,73,210/-. 2. The initial order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I confirmed the demand where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings of the original authority. 4. On going through the impugned order we notice that the adjudicating authority has approved the action of the Board in amending the anomaly in the circular of 25th April 2005 by circular of 16th June 2005 and has invalidated the decision of the Larger Bench in re Eicher Tractors. Whether this was an impropriety in this action of the adjudicating Commissioner is best left to the discernment of rational mind conscious of respective stations in the appellate and administrative hierarchies. We offer no other comment. Suffice it to say, that the Commissioner has not discharged the directions of the remand. 5. The short-point for consideration is whether the impugned order has examined that dispute in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
