TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (6) TMI 534
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts are clearing the same on payment of duty after availment of Cenvat credit on inputs as well as capital goods. The appellants are clearing their final products to their sister concern on payment of duty by following the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000 for valuation of the goods cleared. During the period April, 2006 to August, 2006, appellant cleared the final products on the basis of a certain price and after receiving the final prices based upon the contents of the goods cleared from the factory premises, there was an increase in the price. Consequently, the appellants, in the month of November, 2006 raised supplementary invoices by paying differential duty. The appellants, on raising the supplementar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the provisions of the Central Excise Rules. Coming to such a conclusion, he confirmed the differential duty, confirmed the demand of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act but refrained from imposing any penalty, as proposed in the Show Cause Notice. 4. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the issue in this case is blown out of proportion by the Revenue without considering the legality. It is his submission that the differential duty liability arose only in the month of November, 2006 after the escalation in the price was accorded by their sister concern. It is his submission that provisions of Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, clearly provides for utilization of Cenvat credit for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o August, 2006, the appellant did not have that much balance to pay the differential duty. Hence, she defends the order and submits that the appellant is required to deposit the differential amount of duty. 5. We have considered the submission made at length by both sides and perused the records. The undisputed facts are: that the appellants herein were clearing the final products to their sister concern on payment of duty on the value worked out as per the provisions of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. It is undisputed that during the period April, 2006 to August, 2006, the clearances of the goods were on the value as was adopted by them. There is a clear finding of the Adjudicating Authority that there was no short payment of duty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Cenvat credit can be utilized for payment of duty of excise on any final product. In this case, it is not disputed that the duty liability on the supplementary invoices is nothing but duty of excise. That leads us to the proviso given to the said sub-rule. We find that the said proviso would be applicable to the utilization of credit, which is accrued to an assessee in the routine course of his business, i.e. an assessee having balance of Cenvat credit accrued to him during the relevant period i.e. April, 2006 to August 2006, it can be utilized by him for the regular clearance of the final products during the period. 5.2 The Adjudicating Authority has come to a clear conclusion that the differential duty liability has arisen on the groun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... collusion or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provisions of the Excise Act, or of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) or the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty." 5.4 From the mere reading of the above said provisions as regards supplementary invoices, we find that the supplementary invoice is raised by the manufacturer or importer in case of liability of additional amount of excise duty. That would mean that the duty liability has arisen in this case in the month of November, 2006, that is to say on the date the supplementary invoices were issued. If that be so, any duty liability to be discharged by the appellant would be considered as duty to the Revenue only in the month ....