TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aria raised appeal for recovery of said amount separately from where was recovered through the bill has been paid. The Tribunal in the respondent assessee’s case M/S. TEXMACO LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA-III [2016 (5) TMI 896 - CESTAT KOLKATA] by relying upon the Larger Bench decision in the case of Unison Metals Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-1 [2006 (10) TMI 171 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] and the CBEC Circular No.870/8/2008-CX (supra) have discussed the issue in details and allowed the assessees appeal. Education cess not at all paid to the Government - Held that:- The allegation regarding Education Cess amounting to ₹ 4,93,532/- not at all paid to Govt. has further been verified and it is observ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 70/08/2008-CX dated 16.05.2008 has prescribed certain conditions. The Adjudicating Authority has not mentioned whether those conditions were complied by the respondent assessee. 3. Ld. Counsel for the respondent assessee submitted that the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-III Commissionerate is just and correct and the appeal filed by the Revenue is misconceived, erroneous and is fit to be dismissed. Ld. Counsel further submits that it is an admitted fact that from the Belgharia unit they removed the Couplers and Bogies to the Agarpara unit without payment of duty as provided under Notification No.6/2002-CE and 6/2003-CE after remitting 8% or 10% of the price of the same in terms of Rule 6(3) (b) of the Cenv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, bogies or wagons and therefore question of collection of any amount in excess of the duty paid does not arise at all. In support of his submission he relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Unison Metals Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-1 [2006(204) ELT 323 (Tri.-LB)]. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. We find that the reversal of amount was done by the respondent Belgharia Unit from where the Bogies and Couplers were collected without payment of duty by the respondent. There is no dispute about the reversal of 8% or 10%. We also observed that the amounts were duly debited by TEXMACO Belgharia in terms of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules and it was not alleged that TEXMACO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt in terms of erstwhile rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 or rule 6 of the CENVAT credit Rules, the provisions of Section 11D shall not apply even if the amount is recovered from the buyers. In the instant case on going through the invoices issued by the said assessee for realization of 8%/10% amount, it is observed that they mentioned Claim for reimbursement of total price of Bogies and Couplers as per procurement invoices as per Annexure-I enclosed . In Annexure-I, they mentioned the same as duty debited by their Belghoria Unit. In the show cause notice, however, it is admitted that those amounts were duly debited by Texmaco, Belghoria in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules and it is not alleged that Texmaco, Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
