9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bjections raised by the audit. 3. Ld. Consultant Sh. Anil Gidwani for the appellant submits that the amount of Rs. 1,94,897/- was taken as re-credit and interest of Rs. 10,824/- was paid being objected by the Audit team, relates to receipt of inputs, without payment of duty against invalidation of advance authorization, used in the manufacture of finished goods in their factory and cleared for export against rebate of the duty paid. The demand was confirmed against them alleging that the conditions of Notification No. 44/2001-CE(NT) has not been followed inasmuch as they have not complied with the Procedure laid down under the Provisions of Central Excise (Removal of Goods on Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utilized the input services commonly used in the manufacture of their own goods as well as job worked goods. It is his contention that credit availed on the input service cannot be denied to them in view of the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Polychem Industries vs CCE Daman 2010 (19) STR 585 (Tri. Amd) which was delivered following the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sterllite Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise 2005 (183) ELT 353 (Tri. LB), later upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court reported as 2009 (244) ELT (A89) (Bom.). 6. Per contra, Ld. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, submitted that since the appellant had not followed the mandatory procedure laid down under the Notifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise (N.T.) dated 26th June, 2001. (ix)" 9. I find force in the contention of the Ld. AR for the Revenue that non-fulfilment of these conditions cannot be construed and considered as procedural in nature, in view of the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harichand Shri Gopal & Ors. Case (supra). In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the benefit of the relevant Rule cannot be extended for not following Chapter-X Procedure prescribed under the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Consequently, the appellant are not eligible to avail the benefit of said Notification and consequently the re-credit of Rs. 1,94,897/- is irregular and the interest paid on the said irregular credit is also recover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
