TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (3) TMI 210
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the Company. (a) Certain inputs on which Modvat credit was availed was removed from the factory premises without payment of duty during the period July, 1992 to August 1995 contravening the provisions of Rule 9, 57F(1) and 57G. It was alleged that the appellant had wilfully suppressed this fact of removal and therefore, the appellant was asked to show cause as to why duty amounting to Rs. 6,01,618 already paid by the appellant voluntarily in August/September, 1995 be not confirmed, under the provisions of Rule 57F(1)(ii) of the Rules read with the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Act. (b) Certain inputs valued at Rs. 9,14,617/- were r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missioner held as under, as per his order dated 19-8-96. (a) As the duty of Rs. 6,01,618.34 has already been paid by the appellant and as there is no time limit laid down in Rule 57-I (2), for demanding duty, the demand was confirmed and ordered to be adjusted against the payment already made by them. (b) Regarding the inputs valued at Rs. 9,14,617/- it was held that there is no contravention of Rule 57F(1) or 57G(3)(a) and therefore, these inputs are not liable for confiscation. (c) Regarding inputs valued at Rs. 30,72,366/-, it was held that as they were brought into the factory for trading purposes there ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee months from the date of receipt of the notice of demand" Therefore, demand in this case is required to be made by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise which was to be paid within prescribed days of such a notice. It is found from the records that this amount of Rs. 6,01,618.34 has been paid much before the present proceedings were initiated by the show cause notice issued demanding recovery/appropriation of this amount under the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 read with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The demand so issued can not be made or/and sustained, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Raghuvar (India) Ltd. [2000 (118) E.L.T. 311] whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ht are not identical or similar to the goods manufactured by the Company. The exemption to raw materials component part from Rule 51A is in respect of only those goods which are brought for the purpose of use in the manufacture and not goods which are brought for the propose of trading since the raw materials brought in for the purpose of trading are identical to the raw materials/components meant for manufacturing, there has been a violation of Rule 51A........" We find that Rule 51A has to be interpreted, to restrict the bringing in of such excisable goods for trading activities which have been or are being manufactured and cleared from the factory on payment of duty. The appellants have produced various trade notices which led to and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edge of such activity, the liability for confiscation is not called for. In any case, maximum penalty under Rule 210 is only Rs. 1000/-. Commissioner has not imposed any penalty under this rule. We would set aside the order of confiscation under this Rule 210 and consequently redemption fine as arrived at. (d) Since we do not find any contravention of Rule 51A ab initio and liability for confiscation under Rule 210 as arrived. The Commissioner has found that - "..........since inputs valued at Rs. 6,01,618.3 were removed without payment of duty, penalty is also liable to be imposed under Rule 9(2) and Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Consequently their plant, machinery, building....