9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 734X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder and hence are being decided through this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The assessee is in the manufacture of refined sugar and raw sugar as well as PP Bags are procured as inputs. For purposes of carrying out export of refined sugar, the assessee procured raw sugar as well as PP bags, without payment of duty under the provisions of Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 read with Notification No.43/2001 CE (NT) dated 26.06.2001 as amended. Due to lack of demand and global recession, the assessee could not export part of the refined sugar as envisaged. As per Rule 6 of the above Rules, the assessee was required to discharge the duty on goods procured ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y on the input materials and further that recredit of the said amount is not permissible. 4. The assessee in their appeal has challenged the Order of the adjudicating authority in ordering payment of the duty. Revenue has also challenged a portion of the order on the ground that the adjudicating authority should have demanded repayment of not only the irregularly utilized cenvat credit but also of the irregularly availed cenvat credit i.e. she should have ordered payment of double the cenvat credit amount. 5. In this connection we heard Shri Sunil Kadam, General Manager(Legal) & Shri Rahul Patil, Manager (Accounts) for the Appellant and Shri D.Haldar, AC(AR) for the Respondent. 6. On behalf of the assessee it has been argued that the ide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 6 of the Rules issued under Notification No.43/2001 ibid. Related question is whether such amounts, once paid by debit in cenvat credit, can be allowed for recredit. We find that both these issues have come up before the Tribunal in the case of Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C.Ex, Jaipur-II (supra). By following the Tribunals earlier decision in the case of Shree Rajasthan Texchem Ltd. vs. Commissioner, the appeal stands allowed on both grounds. The observations of the Tribunal are reproduced below: "5. We find that the only question for decision is whether or not the appellants are correct in using the Cenvat credit for discharging duty on the inputs procured without payment of duty, but later, could not be used for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the payment of duty on the inputs has to be discharged by appellant in the present case, in the absence of any specific bar, the appellants have utilized the Cenvat credit available in the records for this purpose. We find no infirmity in such payment. The inputs having been used for the intended purpose of manufacture and clearance of dutiable final products, the credit of such payment is again available to the appellants. In view of the above analysis and also following the precedent decisions of the Tribunal, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals." 8. By following the decision of the Tribunal in identical circumstances, we find no justification in the impugned order and the same is set aside. 9. In the result, the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
