TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Extended period of limitation - Held that: - Revenue is not justified in contending that the appellant had not taken reasonable steps to ensure that appropriate duty had been paid on the said goods or the credit was taken wrongly - there is no intent to suppress or deliberately avail excess credit. Hence, extended period is not applicable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/60440/2016-Ex(SM) - A/60143/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 27-1-2017 - Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Sh. Surjeet Singh, Advocate- for the appellant Sh. Satyapal, AR- for the respondent Per: Devender Singh The appellants are in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. Jai-EXCUS-000-APP-27-16-17 dated 02.08.2016 passed by the CCE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgment dated 01.08.2003 has set aside the judgment dated 31.08.2001 of the Mumbai Court, Hence, the seven Drugs (including the drug in question i.e. Cloxacillin) and their formulations and continued to remain under scheduled category of D.P.C.O., 1995. The appellant and the concerned authority were given the liberty to recover the overcharged amounts as per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In view of the above, I hold that the duty paid by the supplier in excess on the above said goods (as per the calculation chart enclosed with the show cause notice) for the period 01.03.2000 to 30.06.2000 does not merit to be treated as duty but as deposited with the government. Accordingly, the equivalent credit availed by the notice merits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivasa Chemical Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry - 2009 (234) ELT 667 (Tri, Chennai) 5. On the other hand, the Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the finding in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that the case has been detected during the audit by the AG Audit Office and the appellant had not informed the department about availing higher credit than allowed by D.P.C.O. 6. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 7. I find that the appellants have taken cenvat credit on Cloxacillin Sodium Compacted during the 01.03.2000 to 30.06.2000. At that time, the Government had fixed the DPCO price of this drug at ₹ 1421 per kg and the appellants had taken credit on the basis invoices, whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d have charged the Jalgaon unit with under invoicing of their product. That has also not been done. The valuation as fiven by the Sinnar unit was duly approved by the department and the payment of duty was also duly accepted We find absolutely no substance in the attempt of the learned Commissioner to convert a part of the duty so paid into deposit of duty. There is no legal basis for such presumption. The rules entitled the receipt manufacture to avail of the benefit of the duty paid by the supplier manufacturer. A quantum of duty already determined by the jurisdictional officers of the supplier unit cannot be contested or challenged by the officers in charge of recipient unit (2000 (38) ELT 179) . The same view has been taken in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
