9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the course of manufacturing cement, various kinds of capital goods are used of which some lose their efficiency with continuous usage. These used capital goods become unfit for further use and they are discarded as worn out capital goods and sold as waste and scrap. As these goods are sold as waste and scrap, the appellants were of the view that no duty is payable. 3. The Department verified the records of the appellant and informed that they have to pay duty on the worn out machinery cleared as waste and scrap. Thereafter, the appellant vide their letter dated 02.01.2008 submitted that since the goods are cleared as 'waste and scrap', they are not liable to pay duty; however, it was stated that they would be paying duty under protest. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut considering the previous adjudication of the Show Cause Notice, the appellant was called upon for personal hearing and adjudication of the very same Show Cause Notice was done whereby Order-in-Original dated 20.11.2017 was passed wherein the duty demand of Rs. 7,54,303/- was confirmed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with equal penalty under Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC (c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant challenged the above order by filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Coimbatore. During the course of personal hearing, it was brought to the notice of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the matter had already been decided in favour of the appellant vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amount paid by the appellant does not fall under "duty" and the same being a deposit made during pendency of the litigation, Section 11B ibid. will not be attracted. 10.2 In this regard, he placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Coimbatore v. M/s. Pricol Ltd. reported in 2015 (320) E.L.T. 703 (Mad.). 10.3 It is also submitted by the Learned Senior Manager appearing for the appellant that since the payment was made pursuant to the Show Cause Notice, the allegation that the incidence of duty has been passed on is without any basis. 10.4 He prayed that the refund claim may be allowed. 11. Learned Authorized Representative Shri Arul C. Durairaj appeared on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
