TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in terms of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In this fact it is clear that the valve which is cleared as such without involving manufacturing process and duty paid there on is treated as duty paid on removal of inputs in terms of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, the refund granted to the appellant under Notification No. 39/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001 which is not applicable to the removal of input as such, the said refund is correctly recoverable from the appellant. Notification No. 39/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001 clearly prescribes that the refund mechanism is provided only in respect of manufactured goods. The appellant knowingly paid the duty and claimed the refund of unmanufactured goods which itself is mala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001. The case of the department is that the refund under Notification No 39/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001 is available only in respect of manufactured goods whereas the appellant have wrongly availed the refund on the valve which is not a manufactured goods, therefore, the revenue sought to recover the refund already granted to the appellant. 2. Shri R. Subramanya, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant paid the duty on the valve while clearing as such therefore, no further demand can be made on refund. He also submits that the show cause notice was issued invoking the extended period. Since there is no suppression of facts as all the details were disclosed by the appellant in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing as regard the invocation of extended period in para 11 which is reproduced below : - 11. In respect of the contention of the appellant that the inquiry was based on the statutory records like ER-1s and hence as all the information was within the knowledge of the department, the extended period was not invokable. In this regard, on going through the impugned order, I do not find any reason to deviate from the findings of the lower authority that mere scrutiny of ER-1 returns would not reveal that the appellant was not manufacturing the parts/ accessories but the same were procured from outside and cleared 'as such'. Therefore, the fact that the parts/ accessories were actually not manufactured by the appellant was never disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
