TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retail price (MRP) up to Rs. 500/- per piece were exempted from levy of Central Excise duty vide Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000 whereas the watches with MRP exceeding Rs. 500/- per piece continued to attract duty @ 16% adv. The appellants were also availing SSI exemption on wrist watch cases during the financial year 2000-2001. They were availing Cenvat credit facility on all the inputs meant for use in the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted wrist watches but maintaining combined records in respect of receipt, consumption and inventory of the inputs. They were, therefore, required to pay an amount equal to 8% of the value of the exempted wrist watches of MRP up to Rs. 500/- in terms of Rule 57AD(2)(b), but they cleare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed wrist watches and as such they cannot be said to have availed any Modvat credit in the eyes of law, in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur - 1996 (81) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). In that case also there was exemption to the specified goods subject to the condition that no Modvat credit was taken on the inputs used in their manufacture and the same inputs were also utilised for the manufacture of dutiable and duty free goods by the assessee. The assessee did not maintain separate accounts nor segregated the inputs used for the manufacture of both these types of goods as should have been done by him under the Rules. But before clearing the duty free goods, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery provision in the Act or the Rules for that purpose and as such, cannot be recovered. Therefore, the demand of the disputed amount calculated @ 8% of the price of the exempted final products in the present case, could neither be confirmed against the appellants nor ordered to be recovered. The impugned order in this regard is thus legally not sustainable and is set aside. 6. The demand in respect of wrist watch cases confirmed against the appellants of Rs. 77,560/-, has not been seriously contested before us by the Counsel. The appellants admittedly opted for SSI exemption under Notification 8/2000-C.E., dated 1-4-2000, in respect of wrist watch cases manufactured by them. No doubt they reversed the credit paid on the inputs/raw materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
