TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 45
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dit Rules, 2004. It appears that there was a scrutiny of input invoices of the appellant, during which time the scrutiny team appears to have noticed that the appellant had removed its finished product namely, Packing Machinery, valued at Rs.25,67,500/- on payment of duty of Rs,3,49,450/- (BED), Education Cess, etc., for display in an exhibition. It appears that the goods were received back per Invoice dated 29.11.2008 and the credit of duty paid by them at the time of clearance was taken in their CENVAT Account in terms of Rule 16(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It appears that later on, the goods were removed as such on payment of duty on 31.01.2009, along with applicable cess. It appeared that since duty paid was less than the amou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ged since the sale price was less. (iv) They have been filing monthly E.R.-1 returns regularly and hence there was no question of any suppression of any facts, with an intention to evade tax. (v) Reliance was placed on a decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of M/s. HMT Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur [2002 (150) E.L.T. 928 (Tri. - Del.)]. 4. Not impressed by the reply of the appellant, it appears that the adjudicating authority proceeded vide Order-in-Original No. 13/2011 dated 25.01.2011 to demand the differential duty as proposed in the Show Cause Notice, in terms of Rule 16 (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Appro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to him, had resulted in lesser amount of duty being paid; therefore, the demand of differential duty was very much in order and also in terms of Rule 16 (2) ibid. 9. After hearing both sides, we find that the only issue to be decided by us is: whether the appellant is liable to pay the duty equivalent to the CENVAT Credit availed when the goods were returned to the factory or to pay the applicable rate of duty for removal of any normal goods in terms of sub-section (2) to Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944? 10. We have perused the orders of lower authorities, we have also gone through the copy of invoices placed on record and the judicial precedents referred to during the course of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5063 SHE Cess 1% 3595 SHE Cess 1% 2532 Total duties 370234 Total duties 260745 Reportedly, there was a change in the rate of duty applicable from the time when the machine was sent for exhibition to the time when it was actually sold, as apparent from the above table. 12. From the records, we do not see any dispute by the Revenue as to the fact or the contention of the appellant that upon receipt in the factory from the exhibition, the product had lost its originality or that the same required reprocess, etc., to bring it back to the original shape and only thereafter that the machine in question could be sold or removed as such. That me....