Case Law Details
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Thermax Ltd. (CESTAT Mumbai)
On perusal of the records, it is seen that the respondent had procured duty paid inputs on which CENVAT credit was availed but cleared the goods, as such, on a sale value which was higher than the purchase CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 provide for clearance of inputs, as such, subject to debit of duty that was availed as credit at the time of receipt of goods. It is not in doubt that higher duty was discharged at the time of clearance of the goods; there is thus, no scope for fastening additional liability on the assesee as the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not bar such clearances at a price higher than the purchase cost as long as credit taken initially does not continue in the books. Payment of higher duty is not barred and entails a bigger detriment to the appellants.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT MUMBAI ORDER
1. Revenue is in appeal against the order-in-appeal no.PUN- EXCUS-001-APP-243-16-17 dated 30th November 2016 of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Pune, which upheld the order of the lower authority dropping recovery proceedings instituted against M/s Thermax Ltd for not following the prescribed procedure while clearing the goods that were exempted from duty
2. The case of Revenue is that the respondent had procured certain goods that were cleared as such along with other manufactured goods which, according to them, is tantamount to trading; being an exempt from duties or tax, and in the absence of separate records of utilization of inputs for each liability under rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 at the appropriate rate was to be discharged. The two lower authorities did not concur leading to this appeal.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
