TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Modvat credit was availed was removed from the factory premises without payment of duty during the period July, 1992 to August 1995 contravening the provisions of Rule 9, 57F(1) and 57G. It was alleged that the appellant had wilfully suppressed this fact of removal and therefore, the appellant was asked to show cause as to why duty amounting to Rs. 6,01,618 already paid by the appellant voluntarily in August/September, 1995 be not confirmed, under the provisions of Rule 57F(1)(ii) of the Rules read with the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Act. (b) Certain inputs valued at Rs. 9,14,617/- were removed by the appellant from its Central Receiving Stores to the Finished Goods Store within the factory premises. As, accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for demanding duty, the demand was confirmed and ordered to be adjusted against the payment already made by them. (b) Regarding the inputs valued at Rs. 9,14,617/- it was held that there is no contravention of Rule 57F(1) or 57G(3)(a) and therefore, these inputs are not liable for confiscation. (c) Regarding inputs valued at Rs. 30,72,366/-, it was held that as they were brought into the factory for trading purposes there was violation of Rule 51A and they were liable for confiscation. Redemption was allowed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- (d) A penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was levied on the appellant under Rule 9 (2) and Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules. (e) The land, building, plant a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 11A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 read with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The demand so issued can not be made or/and sustained, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Raghuvar (India) Ltd. [2000 (118) E.L.T. 311] wherein the Apex Court held that Section 11 of the Act on it's own terms will have no application or operation in cases covered under Rule 57-I of the rules. Following the same we do not approve the confirmation of the demand of Rs. 6,01,618.34 as arrived at in the impugned order and observe that recovery must be under Rule 57(i) which has already been complied with and no further action as regards this amount was required to be initiated under the provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to be interpreted, to restrict the bringing in of such excisable goods for trading activities which have been or are being manufactured and cleared from the factory on payment of duty. The appellants have produced various trade notices which led to and support the above view. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Autolex Industries v. CCE [1992 (57) E.L.T. 350] held that there was no ban under Rule 51A on the receipt of goods other than those manufactured in the factory. The goods on this account are admittedly not the final products manufactured at the appellants factory. We therefore cannot uphold the liability for confiscation of these goods, as arrived at by the learned Commissioner under Rule 210 of the Central Excise Rules read w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 9(2) and Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Consequently their plant, machinery, building etc., are also liable for confiscation under Rule 173Q (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944........." Since we do not find any inputs valued at Rs. 6,01,618.34/- to have been removed without payment of duty, the only infringement was that under Rule 57F(1)(ii) i.e. removal of inputs without reversal of credit availed on the inputs. Such removals cannot be equated with and be removed without payment of duty in view of the apex court decision in Raghuvar India (supra). They are removals without reversal of Modvat credit. The provision under Rule 57F 'as if manufactured' cannot be given a measuring to consider the same as a levy of duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
