2017 (8) TMI 98

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ling under Chapter 74 of CETA, 1985. During the period 2007-2008 to 2010-2011, the appellant had received rejected finished goods cleared earlier on payment of duty, accordingly, availed credit of Rs. 10,48,137/- under Rule 16 of CER, 2002. Alleging that the goods were not received in their factory, a demand notice was issued to them on 01.12.2011 for recovery of the said credit with interest and penalty. On adjudication the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said, the appellant filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who inturn, rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Ld. Advocate Shri S. J. Vyas for the appellant submits that the rejected finished goods returned by the customers....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant had cleared the goods on transaction value, and the duty paid on it was sometimes higher than the credit availed and also less than the credit taken. He submits that since the process narrated in the respective columns of the said statement does not involve process of manufacture, therefore, the appellants are required to reverse equal amount of credit instead of discharging duty on the transaction value. 5. In his rejoinder, the Ld. Advocate for the appellant submitted that in most of the cases, the appellant had reversed/ paid duty more than the credit taken and accept in few cases the amount of duty paid on the transaction value was less than the credit availed on the rejected goods. He has furnished a statement whereunder excess ....