2009 (8) TMI 554

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Order]. - Both the appeals arise out of a common order and, therefore, both are being taken up together for disposal. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Leather Shoes and Upper Soles classifiable under Chapter 64 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During scrutiny of the ER-I Return, it was noticed that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that they have received the duty paid returned goods and availed credit under Rule 16(1) of the Rules on the basis of supplier's invoice accompanied with the appellant's original invoice. He also submits that the goods were rectified and thereafter cleared on payment of duty with the intimation to the Jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise and produced the copy of letter dated 12-8-2009.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e letter dated 12-8-2009 has no relevancy. He further submits that it is revealed from the adjudication order that the Range Superintendent made enquiry and found that the duty paid returned goods are not rectifiable. He further submits that the appellants by letter dated 21-8-2006 and 24-8-2006 admitted that the goods are not rectifiable. 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the rec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ition "Manufacture" as stipulated in Rule 16(2) above. The Range Officer vide his letter dated 31-8-2006 has reported that out of total quantity, only 266 pairs of shoes involving CE duty of Rs. 33874/- could be cleared by the party on payment of duty even after the expiry of two years. For the remaining quantity the party vide their letter dated 21-8-2006 and 24-8-2006 have reported that these ar....