TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 641
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orted various components from their principal M/s. Ericsson, Sweden and M/s. Ericsson, China. The components were imported free of basic custom duty under Notification No.24/2005-Cus which is available subject to condition that the procedure as prescribed under Customs (Import of goods at concessional rate of duty for manufacture of excisable goods) Rules, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as 1996 Rules is followed. There is no dispute that the appellant were maintaining the records as prescribed under the 1996 Rules. The duty demand of Rs. 2,88,52,271/- has been confirmed against the appellant on the following three grounds:- 1) Certain imported components were written-off without use and hence the Department was of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed for the specified purpose, that just because the components were subsequently found to be defective and re-exported, the same cannot be treated as not having been used for the manufacture of the finished products, that in this regard he relies upon the Tribunals final order No.53407-53408/ 2008 dated 21.08.2014 in the appellant s own case, wherein on the question as to whether in respect of such components, the appellant would be required to reverse the cenvat credit of additional customs duty, the Tribunal held that the reversal of the additional customs duty is not required as such components have to be treated as having been used for the manufacture, that as regards the duty demand of Rs. 94,2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Miscellaneous Application No.E/Misc./50774/2015-EX with regard to the draw-back claim Shri Jain cited the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Share Medical Care vs. Union of India reported in 2007 (209) ELT 321 (SC); CCE, Jaipur vs. Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. reported in 2007 (212) ELT 3 (SC) and Siddharth a Tubes Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore (M.P.) reported in 2006 (193) ELT 3 (SC), wherein it was held that a benefit which is legally admissible can be claimed at any stage. 4. Shri R.K. Grover, ld. Departmental Representative defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. The appellant had imported various ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d purpose. We find that in the appellant s own case decided by the Tribunal s final order No.53407-53408/ 2008 dated 21.08.2014 this very question had come up for consideration. The point of dispute in that case was as to whether in respect of the components which had been issued for manufacture and were used for assembly but later-on being found to be defective was re-exported, cenvat credit of the additional customs duty earlier taken would be reversible and the Tribunal in para 8 of the judgment after considering the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Asahi India Safety Glass Limited vs. Union of India reported in 2005 (180) ELT 5 (Del.) held that such components have to be treated as having been used and hence th....