2007 (5) TMI 437

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri V. Seshagiri Rao, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - The Commissioner has, in adjudication of a show cause notice dated 28-11-05 covering the period July 2001 to June 2005, demanded duty of over Rs. 1.2 crores from the appellants and has imposed on them a penalty of equal amount. After examining the records and hearing both sides we note that certain qua....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt under sub-rule (3) of Rule 16. After considering the submissions of ld. Consultant for the appellants and ld. SDR for the Revenue, we have noticed the contentious nature of the issue arising before us. Rule 16 governs the manner in which finished goods cleared by an assessee and rejected and returned by the buyer should be dealt with. Sub-rule (1) says that such goods can be brought back to the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion 4A of the Act, as the case may be." The appellants paid duty on the goods in question in terms of the second part of the above sub-rule, treating the goods in the category of "any other case" mentioned in the sub-rule. The Revenue would demand an amount equal to the Cenvat Credit taken under sub-rule (1). The present demand, which is under challenge, is the differential between the two. Bot....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ice. 2. At the same time, we are not inclined to reject certain arguments putforth by ld. SDR. It is his submission that, where the appellants say that they did not undertake any activity on the finished goods returned by the buyers, they should accept the fact that they were clearing the finished goods as such after having received the same from the buyers. They did this after having take....