Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)Cce, Chennai vs M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd. on 4 April, 2001
A simple reading of Rule 57E clearly states that if a manufacturer of the final product has not taken any credit on inputs on which subsequent additional duty has been paid, he is entitled for utilizing of the same. In the present case, the appellants had not utilised the Modvat credit on the duty paid on the inputs. They have sold the same in the spare parts market by reversing the credit and paying the additional duty and the goods were sold in the spare parts market. Therefore, the department stand that the appellant is required to reverse the credit utilised improperly on the additional duty paid or deposit the amount on the confirmation of demand as a consequence of the issue of the show cause notice in correct and requires to be confirmed. The situation referred to by the Ld. Counsel in the case of Home Ashok Leyland Ltd. (supra) is that in that case additional duty paid on the inputs by the manufacturers of input subsequent to the duty paid by them were allowed to take credit while paying duty on the final product. The situation in the present case is different. Therefore, the citation is distinguishable. There is no merit in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel that they can utilise the credit of the additional duty paid on the inputs as correct which have already been sold.
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Elgi Equipments on 9 March, 2001
Insofar as the submission of the Ld. Counsel that no penalty is not leviable under Rule 173Q and Section 11 AC as they had already reversed the credit and paid the same even before the issue of the show cause notice and that the issue is covered by Apex Court Judgment rendered in the case of CCE v. Elgi Equipments reported in 2001 (128) ELT 52 (SC) and that of Amritsar Crown Caps (P) Ltd. v. CCB is required to be considered. Ld. SDR submits as there was a violation, mandatory penalty is leviable. On a careful consideration, I notice that the citation referred by the Ld. Counsel supports to the facts of the case as in the present case, the appellants had reversed the credit amount even before the issue of show cause notice. In that view of the matter, no penalty is leviable, and therefore the imposition and confirmation of penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q are set aside. Except for this modification, the appeal is otherwise rejected. Ordered accordingly.
Section 3 in The Customs Tariff Act, 1975 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
The Customs Act, 1962
1