TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory - such manipulations of the record, cannot in any circumstances be considered as an intention not to avail the CENVAT credit, which is inadmissible to them, but an innocent belief of the Budget speech of the Finance Minister - Also, the eligibility of refund of 4% SAD paid on selling of the imported goods as such after 14.9.2007, subject to the fulfillment of the condition laid down in the said Notification would not come to the rescue to the Appellant. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Central Excise Appeal No.11745 of 2013, 11746 of 2013-SM - A/13307-13308/2017 - Dated:- 31-10-2017 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) Shri Devan Parikh, Senior Advocate with Shri Willingdon Christian, Advocate for the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SAD at the time of import paid by them was eligible to CENVAT credit in view of Budget Speech of the Finance Minister for the Financial Year 2005-06. It is his contention that the 4% SAD paid at the time of import became admissible as refund on sale of the imported goods as such with effect from 14.9.2007 by virtue of Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007. Therefore, no intention to evade payment of duty could be attributable to them for availing credit when the goods were sold as such from the place of port against commercial invoice. It is his further submission that the demand notice was issued on 02.02.2011 for the period April 2006 to July 2009 is barred by limitation since the situation is Revenue neutral after the introductio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch materials in the production of finished goods in the relevant column 8 of the RG-23A Part I and Part II register. In the said register, they had mentioned issue slips which were fabricated and allotted false chit numbers, itself shows the intention of the Appellant was to avail CENVAT credit of 4% SAD which was not admissible to them as they knew that these imported goods were traded from the place of import itself without receiving the same in the factory premises for its use. Therefore, the cited case law are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The ld.A.R. further submitted that eligibility of refund of 4% of SAD under Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.07 on the imported goods cannot be considered to be automatically ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orax Pentahydrate, and instead of receiving and utilizing same in the manufacture of finished goods in their factory sold out it against commercial invoices. It is the contention of the Department that 4% SAD paid on such imported goods without its receipt and use in the factory premises is not admissible as credit to the Appellant. The Appellant even though not disputed the fact that CNAVAT credit on 4% SAD was inadmissible to them, but vehemently argued that the demand is barred by limitation. It is submitted that all the facts were within the knowledge of the Department, inasmuch as, periodical audits of the records were carried out during the said period, the total quantity on which credit availed were shown as receipt and disposal in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
