TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their records mis-declared the actual facts by suppressing the disappearance of the machines - Decided against the assessee. - E/785/12 - A/90038/16/SMB - Dated:- 31-8-2016 - Shri Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri Neerav R Mainkar, Advocate for Appellant Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) for Respondent ORDER The appellants, M/s Meghdoot Refrigeration Industries Pvt. Ltd., are in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. M-I/AV/283-384/2011 dated 6.5.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-I. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of commercial refrigeration appliances i.e. deep freezers and water coolers. On the basis of intelligence, the officers visite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gues that the situation in their case was covered under Rule 16(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The goods were brought back to the factory for repairs and they have been entered in the Form-V register. He further contended that Rule 16(2) was not applicable in this case. He also submitted that they had paid the duty of ₹ 85,000/- as mentioned in show-cause notice, after being pointed out by the Department before the issue of show-cause notice. He added that differential duty of ₹ 17,000/- was only pointed out in the show-cause notice. The situation was covered under Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He also argued that there was no suppression as Form V Register was found which contained entries of goods and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any other reason, the assessee shall state the particulars of such receipt in his records and shall be entitled to take CENVAT credit of the duty paid as if such goods are received as inputs under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 and utilise this credit according to the said rules. (2) If the process to which the goods are subjected before being removed does not amount to manufacture, the manufacturer shall pay an amount equal to the CENVAT credit taken under sub-rule (1) and in any other case the manufacturer shall pay duty on goods received under sub-rule (1) at the rate applicable on the date of removal and on the value determined under sub-section (2) of section 3 or section 4 or section 4A of the Act, as the case may be. Expl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other case the manufacturer shall pay duty on goods received under sub-rule (1) at the rate applicable on the date of removal and on the value determined under subsection (2) of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 4A of the Act, as the case may be. In other words, even though manufacturer on return of the goods seeks to avail of cenvat credit, he will have to pay the amount equal to such credit in case a process under which the returned product undergoes does not amount to manufacture. In the case in hand, admittedly, returned goods did not undergo any process of manufacture. Being so, there cannot be any dispute that the provision of Rule 16(2) were clearly attracted and there was no occasion for the appellants to claim the benefit under sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
