TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 917
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ants, Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 18.02.2011 has upheld the order of the Original Authority while setting aside the penalty proposed. 2. Ms. Krati Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants, submits that the goods were supplied under a Certificate issued, in Annexure-I as per the Notification, by Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Bareli as communicated to them vide letter dated 27.06.2008; the letter was in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 3 of Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001; such availment of benefit was also communicated, vide letters sent along with ARE-3, to Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Bareli, in terms of Rule 4 of the said Rules; the appellants also reversed 10% of the total value of the subject goods cleared, as required under Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 3. Learned Counsel submits that the show cause notice proceedings are in violation of the permission granted by jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of the manufacturer of the finished goods; the goods were supplied after following the due procedure prescribed under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and characteristics to the finished goods; therefore, the goods fall under List 4 of the Notification; CBEC Circular No.58/1/2002 dated 15.01.2002 clarifies that refrigeration plants are basically systems comprising of various components and are not machines as a whole; the following cases support the above contention: (i) Hero Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.- 2018 (364) ELT 1090 (Tri.Chan.) (ii) Phenix Construction Technology- 2017 (358) ELT 241 (Tri. Ahmd.) (iii) Rakhoh Enterprises- 2016 (338) ELT 449 (Tri. LB). 6. Learned Counsel further submits that the appellant and the ultimate manufacturer- end user have complied with the procedure prescribed under Rule 3 & 4 of the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001; without prejudice to the same, the duty liability, if any, on the subject goods lies on their customer in terms of Rule 6 ibid; it is their customer who has given the bond to undertake the payment of duty, if any; Circular No.354/66/2001- TRU dated 21.06.2001 expresses the same view and the same is upheld by Ravin Cables Ltd.- 2017 (352) ELT 65 (Tri. Mumbai). Learned Counsel al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001. The jurisdictional Central Excise Officer has certified that the appellants have executed bond for Rs. 45,00,000/- (Rupees forty-five lakhs only). The appellants have dispatched their goods namely fuel and ash handling system under a series of invoices over a period of time and have stated that the A.R. 3A documents supporting the invoices were received back duly acknowledged and with duly completed re-warehousing certificates countersigned by the Central Excise authorities at the end of M/s. BCML. Such copies of A.R. 3As duly certified after rewarehousing were continuously submitted to their Superintendent of Range-V, Pune. It is to be noted that these facts are not disputed by Revenue. It is also stated by the ld. Consultant that Annexure-I is still "live" and has not been cancelled by the Central Excise authorities. The Commissioner (Appeals) in her order acknowledges that the Annexure has been signed by the AC/DC Central Excise but has not raised the question of cancellation of Annexure 'I'. In fact the Commissioner (Appeals) states that Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Conce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Hon'ble Apex Court has upheld this decision. Moreover, we find that Tribunal in the case of Ravin Cables Ltd. (supra) held that the liability to discharge duty is on the end-user of goods. It was held that: 5. We find that in normal course, the duty should have been demanded from the manufacturer of the goods but particularly in case of the facts of the present case the goods were cleared by the appellant under NIL rate of duty not on their own but on the basis of annexure provided by the buyer which was issued by the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner of the buyer confirming that the goods so supplied is meant for non-conventional energy device, in such circumstances end use of the goods cannot be the responsibility of supplier, responsibility is of the buyer of the goods. It is for that purpose, as per Concessional Duty Rules, [2001] buyer is under obligation to execute bond in respect of foregone duty. If the goods procured under the said provision is not used for intended purpose or diverted otherwise, Excise duty shall be recovered by encashing bond/bank guarantee, otherwise no purpose will be served for execution of bond. We also perused particularly Rule 6 of the C....