TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 987
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ailing area based exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002. There are three issues contested in the present appeals. The first one is with reference to eligibility of the appellant for exemption/refund of education cess and higher education cess paid on final products cleared by them. Both the sides agreed that the issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in M/s. SRD Nutrients Pvt. Limited vs CCE, Guwahati - 2017 (355) ELT 481 (SC). The Apex court held that the assessee will be eligible for education cess/ higher education cess paid on excise duty, when the excise duty itself is exempted from levy. By following the said ratio, the first dispute is decided in favour of the appellants. 3. The se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir earlier decision in Rooffit Industries 2015 (319) E.L.T. 221 (S.C.). The Apex Court observed as below :- "16. It will thus be seen that where the price at which goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee is different for different places of removal, then each such price shall be deemed to be the normal value thereof. Sub-clause (b)(iii) is very important and makes it clear that a depot, the premises of a consignment agent, or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory are all places of removal. What is important to note is that each of these premises is referable only to the manufacturer and not to the buyer of excisable goods. The depot, or the premises of a c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....factory. As such, the question of paying duty on such value addition to be covered by the exemption under Notification 56/2002-CE does not arise. Accordingly, we hold the claim of the appellant in this appeal is not sustainable. 6. The third issue is with reference to sales returns of certain finished goods, earlier cleared by the appellant. Some of the goods cleared by the appellants were rejected by the buyers for some reason and were returned back to the appellant. The appellants took re-credit of duty already paid on such clearances, in terms of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. After further processing, if any, the said goods were again cleared on payment of appropriate duty. Thereafter, the process of re-credit/ refund of such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cleared first time. They cannot avail the same for the second time. 9. After hearing both the sides and perusal of the impugned order, we note that denial of the concession under notification No. 56/2002 for the appellant, is not justified by any provisions of law. In fact, the impugned order admits that there is no specific provision to cover such situation. However, presuming a possible attempt in availing undue advantage, the lower authority held that appellant is not eligible for concession under Notification No. 56/2002 when the goods were re-cleared, after processing etc. We find that procedure for return of goods and re-clearance was clearly cover by the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002, and the appellants followed the sa....