2009 (4) TMI 615

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l of the inputs and therefore they claimed refund of the excess duty paid under four claims for different periods as per the following details. Each claim also included duty paid on abatements held to be admissible from the respective values adopted for payment of duty on the inputs. Sl. No. Dale of filing Claim Period to which claim relates Refund claimed Rs. 1. 19-6-2001 9-2-01 to 30-4-01 4,43,890/- 2. 3-1-2002 05/01 to 09/01 10,90,643/- 3. 4-6-2002 10/01 to 03/02 8,59,217/- 4. 16-12-2002 04/02 to 09/02 10,67,318/-     Total 34,61,068/- After due process of law, the original authority sanctioned refund of the excess amount paid by the respondents for the period 2/01 to 4/01 and credited Rs. 4,43,890/- to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... follows. Explanation to Rule 57B(i)(b) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (9-2-01 upto 28-2-2001) Explanation :- When inputs or capital goods are removed from the factory, the manufacturer of the final products shall pay the appropriate duty of excise leviable thereon as if such inputs or capital goods have been manufactured in the said factory, and such removal shall be made under the cover of an invoice prescribed under Rule 52A Rule 57AB (1C) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (from 1-3-2001 to 30-6-2001) When inputs or capital goods, on which credit has been taken, are removed as such from the factory, the manufacturer of the final products shall pay an amount equal to the duty of Excise which is leviable on such goods at the rate applicable....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he date of their removal on the value determined for such goods under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Act, as the case may be. The Revenue has raised the ground that the respondents had paid appropriate duty on impugned removals of inputs during the material period in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions and that the claim for refund had been correctly rejected by the original authority. Reliance is also placed on Circular No. 816/93/2005 dated 16-6-2005 issued by the CBEC which had clarified that prior to 1-2-03, amount of duty to be paid on removal of inputs as such would be governed by the provisions of Rule 57AB(1)C of CER, Rule 3(4) of CCR, 2001 or amended Rule 3(4) of CCR, 2002. 3. In the cross objections filed by th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....its circular dated 25-4-2005 has categorically said that clarifications given in this Circular supersede the earlier Circular dated 1-7-2002. The revenue cannot argue against its own Circular, when the Board has stated that the provisions of the Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 would apply in respect of the capital goods and inputs on which credit has been availed are removed as such. We may reproduce the said Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which reads as under : "3(5) When inputs or capital goods, on which Cenvat credit has been taken, are removed as such from the factory, or premises of the provider of output service, the manufacturer of the final products or provider of output service, as the case may be, shall pay....