TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 853
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods upon payment of excise duty at the rate applicable from time to time. Somewhere in the year 2000, assessee had an occasion to sell such product to one M/s. Shakti Pumps Ltd. situated at Pithampur in Madhya Pradesh. It is not in dispute that purchaser approached assessee with two certificates from Excise Department in form CT-2. From the perusal of such CT-2 certificates it emerges that M/s. Shakti Pumps Ltd. was granted such certificates certifying that the company is authorized to obtain unmachined casting falling under Chapter No.73 heading No.7325.30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act at nil rate of duty under Notification No.6 of 2000 for the manufacture of power driven pumps set primarily designed for handling water at Pithampur (Dh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y following the procedure prescribed." 4. On the basis of such stand in the communication dated 28.03.2000, assessee approached Department seeking refund of modvat credit reversed at the rate of 8% of the duty paid, on the premise that assessee was not required to weigh any liability of excise duty since Rule 57-CC of Central Excise Rules, 1944 would not apply in the present case. 5. Since Department was prima facie not inclined to accept refund claim, show cause notices were issued on 28.11.2000 and 21.08.2001 calling upon the assessee why refund claim should not be rejected. 6. After hearing the assessee, Adjudicating Officer by his order dated 29.12.2000 rejected refund claim holding that provisions of Rule ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er X of the Central Excise Rules pertains to remission of duty on goods used for special industrial purposes and thus provided for entirely different category. In this regard, reliance is placed upon following decisions:- (1) Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v/s. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. Reported in 2003 (160) ELT 503. (2) Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore v/s. S.R.F. Limited reported in 2008 (223) ELT 508 (3) Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta - IV v/s. Hastings Jute Mill reported in 2001 (135) ELT 708. 11. It was further contended that the goods manufactured by M/s. Shakti Pumps Ltd. were not exempted under Notification No.6 of 2000. In that view of the matter and in any case, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to eight percent of the price (excluding sales tax and other taxes, if any payable on such goods) of the second category of final products charged by the manufacturer for the sale of such goods at the time of their clearance from the factory. 14. Short question therefore, that calls for our consideration is whether case of assessee would fall under Rule 57-CC of the Central Excise Rules. If so, then, assessee had rightly discharged duty liable at the rate of 8% on the goods in question, since it can be validly said that goods were used for manufacture of product which was exempted from payment of excise duty. 15. Insofar as exemption Notification No.6 of 2000 is concerned, goods used in the manufacture of power driven pu....