Case Law Details
RMC Switch Gears Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi)
CESTAT Delhi held that CCR, or the Central Excise Rules or the Act places an obligation on the buyer of the goods to investigate that whether the process undertaken by the supplier amounts to manufacture or not and determine the duty thereon.
Facts- During the investigation initiated at M/s Bhushan Steels Ltd., Ghaziabad who supplied HR Coils and other inputs to the appellant, it appeared that M/s Bhushan Steels had undertaken processes which did not amount to manufacture but had paid central excise duty. It further appeared that the duty so paid cannot be termed as duty, but only as an amount u/s. 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which must be deposited with the Central Government.
A show cause notice was issued proposing to deny Cenvat credit to the appellant on the above invoices on the ground that Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides for credit of duty of excise, but not the credit of an amount deposited u/s. 11D. Accordingly, the appellant was called upon to explain why the above credit should not be recovered from it under Rule 14 of the CCR read with section 11A along with interest u/s. 11AA. Penalty was also proposed to be imposed under Rule 15 (2) of CCR read with section 11AC.
The Assistant Commissioner passed order dated 11.2015, which was affirmed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
