2009 (12) TMI 470

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....manufacture of excisable goods. The department noticed that the respondents had taken Cenvat credit on an input which was used in the manufacture of final product which was totally exempted by Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002, which is irregular though the respondents had reversed an amount equal to the 8% of the value of such exempted goods cleared. It was also noticed by the department that the respondent had cleared spent solvents and chemicals under commercial invoice without payment of duty. On these two allegations, show cause notice was issued to the respondent demanding duty and proposing to impose penalties and also seeking to demand interest. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed demands raised and also imposed penaltie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ered the basic fact that the reversal of 8% is only for the clearance of the final products and as such the said information was not found in their periodical returns. As regards the point on the demand of duty on the spent solvents, it is the submission that this spent solvent would get covered under definition of 'manufacture' as per the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is his submission that the impugned order be set aside and the Order-in-Original be restored. 5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that as regards the issue of spent solvent, it is now settled by various decisions of this Bench and more recently in the case of CCE, Hyderabad-III v. Natco Pharma Ltd. - 2007 (208) E.L.T. 573 (Tribunal-Bang.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....empted products. The findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) are very relevant and which I may reproduce : "However, on the question of limitation they do have a case. It is to be noted that the show cause notice in this case was issued after expiry of normal period of 1 year as stipulated under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. There appears to be no case for the department to allege and substantiate that extended time period clause could be invoked. I find that the appellants have been furnishing the Cenvat availment information as well as information regarding payment of amounts @ 8% of the exempted goods in their periodical returns filed by them from time to time. That being the case, it cannot be alleged that there....