2017 (4) TMI 1125

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te with Shri Nikhil Nichani, Advocate for the respondent ORDER The fact of the case is that the appellants at the time of receipt of input reduced the credit of 0.4% towards transit loss and availed credit only in respect of 99.6% of the duty paid on the inputs. At the time of removal of input as such to the sister concern, they are paying the same amount of duty i.e. less 0.4% on the total quan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n behalf of the revenue submits that the respondent was required to pay the duty on the entire quantity removed as such to their sister concern whereas the respondent had paid 0.4% less than the quantity of input removed as such. Accordingly there is short payment of duty. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has rightly confirmed the demand and the ld. Commissioner has wrongly set aside the Orde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the assessee is required to pay duty on the removal of inputs as such for an amount which is equal to the cenvat credit availed at the time of receipt of such inputs. Therefore whatever credit was availed the same was paid on removal of inputs as such. Therefore, there is no short payment of duty. He submits that there was some quantification error on the part of the appellants which they have cor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the demand of duty on 0.4% is not tenable for the simple reason that the credit on the said quantity was also not availed at the time of receipt of input. As per erstwhile Rule 57AB and Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, the duty on removal of input to be paid is only the actual credit availed at the time of receipt of inputs. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, when the appellants have ta....