TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (9) TMI 64
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it of duty paid on inputs and capital goods. Following an audit of the records of the assessee by the internal audit party of the Department, it was observed that the party had availed credit of duty paid on inputs which were used in the manufacture of goods cleared on payment of duty as well as without payment of duty under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. dated 25-3-86. The assessee was asked to pay an amount at the rate of 8% on the price of the goods cleared on job work basis in terms of Rule 6 (3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 (CCR). M/s. Hwashin paid Rs. 14,49,354/- along with interest of Rs. 50,352/- from their PLA on 4-11-2003 following the directions of the Department. M/s. Hwashin thus paid/debited a total amount of Rs. 63,68,95....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. Moreover, after verification, the Range Officer had reported that the assessee had not collected the amount paid from the principal manufacturer. 3. During hearing, ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the amount collected in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of the CCR was to adjust the inadmissible credit in respect of inputs that went into the production of exempted goods. Job worked goods were held by the decision of the Tribunal to be not exempted goods. Therefore, the appellants were not liable to pay any amount in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of the CCR, 2002. The amount paid by the assessee was not Central Excise duty. Therefore, its refund was not governed by Section 11B of the Act. The limitation prescribed under Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of job worked goods cleared to its principal manufacturer without payment of duty. The appellants had used common inputs in the manufacture of finished goods cleared on payment of duty as well as the job worked goods cleared without payment of duty. At the instance of the department, the appellants had paid an amount as required in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of CCR followed by several letters of protest. Their claim for refund of the entire amount I was rejected on the basis that the amount had been paid in accordance with law. It was also decided that part of the claim was barred by limitation. The original authority, however, had found that the amount involved was not duty. 7. We find that in Sterlite Industries Ltd. (supra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....benefit intended to be extended to the assessee should be avoided. If the interpretation adopted by the revenue is upheld, the benefit otherwise intended to be given will get frustrated apart from leading to discriminatory situation, where the manufacturer has himself processed the inputs and in the other case were he is sending it to the job worker." 8. In Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal observed that the amount paid in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of CCR was for the adjustment of credit of inputs which went into the manufacture of exempted goods. This amount was collected towards the inadmissible credit availed by an assessee using common inputs and clearing also the exempted final product. As the appellants were eligible for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e circumstances we find that the appellants were not required to pay an amount of Rs. 63,68,953/- along with interest of Rs. 50,352/-. They were eligible for refund of the same. As these amounts do not represent duty, the refund of the same need not be subjected to the procedure prescribe under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. It is seen from the order of the original authority that the amount impugned had not been collected from the customers by the appellants. Therefore, the refund of the same would not involve unjust enrichment. In the circumstances, we find that the impugned order is not sustainable. 9. We have also considered the case law cited by ld. SDR. The decision of the Tribunal cited was affirmed by the apex Court. ....