TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufactured by the supplier therefore as regard the concept of valuation and rate of duty of the input for the purpose of charging duty, it is that value and rate of duty which was applicable to the manufacturer supplier of the input. Merely because deeming fictions is given in rule for the purpose of procedure it does not empower to Revenue to charge the duty over and above the duty equivalent to the Cenvat Credit availed - duty paid by the removal of inputs is in order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/2898/06 - A/85344/17/EB - Dated:- 12-1-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Ms. Mansi Patil, Advocate for Appellant Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (A.R.) for responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/-. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant are before us. 2. Ms. Mansi Patil, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that in case of removal of input as such, the appellant was required to pay the duty only on amount equal to the Cenvat credit availed on such inputs irrespective of fact whether any additional amount was charged by the appellant, the duty so payable will not vary. She submits that the issue has been settled in the various judgments particularly Larger Bench decision in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Vadodara Vs. Asia Brown Boveri Ltd. 2000 (120) E.L.T. 228 (Tribunal -LB) this decision has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported as 2001 (131) E.L.T. A 149 (S.C.). She also place ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 718 (Tri.LB) (iv) Crompton Greaves Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Aurangabad 2004 (177) ELT 1032 (Tri. -Mumbai (v) Bayer ABS Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara 2012 (281) E.L.T. 296 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (vi) Mahalaxmi Fabrics Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. S. T. Ahmedabad-l 2016 (339) E.L.T. 427 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (vii) Shahnaz Ayurvedics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida 2004 (173) E.L.T. 337 (All.) (viii) Commissioner of C. Ex. Bolpur Vs. Ratan Melting Wire Industries 2008 (231) E.L.T. 22 (S.C.) (viii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal Vs. Minwook Rock Fibres Ltd. 2012 (278) E.L.T. 581 (S.C.) (x) Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 1988 (36) E.L.T 201 (S.C.) (xi) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch removal shall be made under the cover of an invoice referred to in Rule 7 From the above provision it is seen that the concept of deemed manufacture is only for the purpose of procedure to be followed for removal of input since the removal of input also attracts duty. But it is the fact that the input is not manufactured by the appellant whereas the same is manufactured by the supplier therefore as regard the concept of valuation and rate of duty of the input for the purpose of charging duty, it is that value and rate of duty which was applicable to the manufacturer supplier of the input. Merely because deeming fictions is given in rule for the purpose of procedure it does not empower to Revenue to charge the duty over and above th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
