9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is with reference to eligibility of the appellant for refund of education cess and higher education cess paid on final products cleared by them. Both the sides agreed that the issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. SRD Nutrients Pvt. Limited vs CCE, Guwahati - 2017 (355) ELT 481 (SC). The Apex court held that the assessee will be eligible for education cess/ higher education cess paid on excise duty, when the excise duty itself is exempted from levy. By following the said ratio, the first dispute is decided in favour of the appellants. 4. The second point of dispute is with reference to valuation of the final products cleared by the appellants. The appellants valued the products by including outward fre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at which goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee is different for different places of removal, then each such price shall be deemed to be the normal value thereof. Sub-clause (b)(iii) is very important and makes it clear that a depot, the premises of a consignment agent, or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory are all places of removal. What is important to note is that each of these premises is referable only to the manufacturer and not to the buyer of excisable goods. The depot, or the premises of a consignment agent of the manufacturer are obviously places which are referable only to the manufacturer. Even the expression "any other place or premises" refers onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e hold the claim of the appellant in this appeal is not sustainable. 7. The third issue is with reference to eligibility in terms of Notification No. 19/2008-CE dated 27.03.2008 and 34/2008-CE dated 10.06.2008, whether the appellants are entitled to claim refund/self-credit as restricted by these notifications or not. After hearing the parties, we find that the notifications in question have been examined by the Hon'ble J & K High Court in the case of Reckit Benckiser vs. UOI - 2011 (269) ELT 194 (J&K), wherein the Hon'ble High Court quashed the notifications in question. Therefore, in terms of Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002, the appellants are entitled to claim refund/ self-credit of duty paid through PLA, relying on the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The procedure for return of duty paid goods, re-credit of duty already paid and liability to pay duty when the goods were again cleared after reprocessing etc. are governed by Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which are available to the appellants also. The view of the Revenue that Notification No. 56/2002 is available only once, is neither justified nor legally supported. 10. Ld. AR contested the appeal and submitted that though the notification did not elaborately discuss the procedure to be followed in such situation, the fact is that the appellants were granted facility of recredit/ refund for the same goods when they were cleared first time. They cannot avail the same for the second time. 11. After hearing both the sides a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
