TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (9) TMI 87
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....07.2004? Same questions of law are framed in all the three tax appeals. As a matter of fact, all the three Tax Appeals arose out of the common order passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad in Appeal Nos. E/4101/05, E/328/2006 and E/71/07 dated 16.4.2007/A-836-838/WZB/A'bad-07. 2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the facts are taken from Tax Appeal No.1032 of 2007. The respondent-assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of cotton fabrics falling under Chapter 52 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondent uses grey cotton, dyes, chemicals, packing material, etc. as inputs for manufacture of cotton fabrics and is availing benefit of Notification Nos. 29/2004 and 30/2004 both dated 09.07.2004. 2.1 The above mentioned notifications have been issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 5A(1) of the said Act. The notification No.29/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 exempts excisable goods of the description specified in column (3) of the table and falling within the chapter, Heading No. or Sub-Heading No. of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 specified in the corresponding entry in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....larified that both the notifications are independent and there is no restriction of availing the benefit conferred on both of them simultaneously provided separate books of accounts are maintained as is stated hereinabove. 2.6 The scrutiny of ER-1 returns submitted by the respondent for the period from February-2005 to November-2005 revealed that the respondent had started availing of benefits under both the notifications simultaneously with effect from February-2005. Prior to February-2005, the respondent was clearing goods on payment of applicable duty under Notification No.29/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004. It was noticed that the respondent had started availing benefit of both the notifications simultaneously. However, the respondent was not maintaining separate accounts for receipt of inputs being used in the manufacture of fabrics subsequently cleared without payment of duty availing of the benefit of second Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004, which is a mandatory condition. 2.7 In view of the above, a letter from the Range Office dated 26.12.2005 was issued to the respondent requesting it to intimate as to whether the separate records were being maintained as required f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In the said statement, there was an admission of the duty amount calculated and was shown as annexure. 2.8 On scrutiny of ER-1 return submitted by the respondent for the period from February-2005 to December-2005 and the details available for the period from 01.01.2006 to 17.01.2006, it appears that the respondent had cleared quantity of fabrics of 4,40,15,136 mtrs. And 5,013 kgs. of processed fabrics valued at Rs.88,09,49,089/- for availing benefit of Notification No. 30/2004 dated 09.07.2004 and by reversing the duty to the tune of Rs.45,28,982/- (basic Rs.44,40,902/- + Education Cess Rs.88,080/-). These goods were cleared without maintaining separate books of accounts and thus, there was contravention of Notification No.30/2004 and the clarificatory circular issued by the Board. It was therefore felt that the respondent was liable to pay duty on the aforesaid quantity of fabrics cleared without payment of duty. It also appeared that the duty payable on the above mentioned goods cleared during the above period without payment of duty under Notification No.30/2004 and without maintaining separate books of accounts came to Rs.3,59,42,723/- (Duty Rs.3,52,37,964/- + Education Cess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laced before the Court. In the above view of the matter, all the three appeals are taken up for admission hearing. 4. Mr. Y. N. Ravani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue, has submitted that the Tribunal has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. (supra), however, the facts are clearly distinguishable and the relevant notification which is under consideration in the present appeals was not before the Honourable Supreme Court and hence, the said decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. He has further submitted that there is certain principle of law that when a notification is issued by the Department, it has to be strictly construed and neither anything has to be added in that notification nor anything has to be read beyond what is specifically stated in the notification. In this context, he relied upon the decisions in the case of (i) Eagle Flask Industries Limited vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune, 2004 (171) E.L.T. 296 (S.C.); (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy vs. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders, 2004 (165) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.); (iii) Commissioner of Centr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Notification No.29 of 2004 and for the goods availing of the benefit of Notification No.30 of 2004. He has further observed that the circular does not speak of final goods or inputs, but, it refers to the goods only and then, he came to the conclusion that as the subjected two notifications refer to the aspect of credit being taken or otherwise of inputs, maintenance of separate accounts for inputs is of prime importance. Since this condition was not satisfied, he confirmed the levy of duty, penalty, etc. This finding of the learned Commissioner of Central Excise is not in consonance with the observations made and the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. (supra). 6. The findings rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. (supra) are clearly applicable to the present matters. In that case also, the case of the Department was that reversal of credit entries is not permitted by the rules. The assessee is not entitled to remove the copper wires without payment of duty since credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of copper wire had already been taken in acc....