9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue is before the Tribunal. 2. Ld. AR argued that the respondents were granted permission for obtaining HR Coils from M/s.JSW, Ballery for manufacture of CR Coils/sheets, G.C Sheets, etc. and export the same under Rule 19 (2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The respondent obtained materials from JSW Ballery and used the same for manufacture of export products. Some quantity of HR coils received from JSW Ballery was not used for export production, due to manufacturing defects. The same was sold in DTA on payment of duty on the value which appeared in ARE-2 application/Central Excise Invoices at the time of clearance from JAW, Ballery to JSW, Tarapur. The price revision of the said goods after clearance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Rule 19 (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The second ground raised by the Ld. AR was that the credit on supplementary invoice is available only when the manufacture of excisable goods raises such invoice and that the credit is to be availed by the recipient of the excisable goods. He argued that in the instant case, the duty was paid on goods already sold by the respondent to unrelated buyers and supplementary invoices in respect of such sale is not a valid documents for availing Cenvat Credit. He argued that supplementary invoice was issued by the respondent themselves. He argued that in terms of Rule 9 (1) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules such credit cannot be taken for the reason that in the instant case such non-levy/short levy by reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny intention to evade duty. 5. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that Rule 6 of the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of duty for manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001, reads as under: Recovery of duty in certain cases. - (The said Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner shall ensure that the goods received are used by the manufacturer for the intended purpose and where the subject goods are not used) by the manufacturer shall be liable to pay the amount equal to the difference between the duty leviable on such goods but for the exemption and that already paid, if any, at the time of removal from the factory of the manufacturer of the subject goods, alongwith interest and the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents were entitled to the credit of the same. A perusal of the show-cause notice shows that while the duty has been demanded for diversion of the goods received under Rule 19 (2) of the Central Excise Rules. No allegation that the said goods were used by the appellant for other purposes. Under these circumstances, I find substantial force in the observations of the Commissioner (Appeals) which reads as follows: "From the foregoing, I find that the demand raised and confirmed against the appellants, under mistaken understanding that the disputed duty has not been paid on their inputs but on their finished goods, is legally not sustainable on merits as well as on time limit and therefore liable to be set aside. I order accordingly" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
