SHREYANS INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the impugned order -in -original vide which the demand of Rs. 10,83,138/under Section IID and Rs. 6,18,163/ - under Rules 57 -1 and 57 -AD read with Section HA(1) of the Act with interest and penalty of equal amount had been confirmed against the appellants.

(2.) The learned Counsel has contended that no demand under Section 11D could be confirmed against the appellants as the appellants did not charge/collect the duty from their buyers. They were working under the exemption Notification Nos. 6/2000 and 3/2001 at that time and the price charged by the appellants, accordingly to the Counsel, was a composite price and there is no evidence on record to prove the collection of duty by them from the buyers. In support of this contention, Counsel has placed reliance on the ratio of law laid down in Pitambar Coated Paper Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur [2003 (152) E.L.T. 392]. Regarding the confirmation of duty under Rule 57 -AH(1), the Counsel has contended that the appellants reversed the Modvat credit at the rate of 8% in respect of the inputs on which they claimed the credit and utilised in the manufacture of the exempted goods. The adjustment of that amount has been wrongly denied to them. He has further stated that after crossing the exemption limit, the appellants paid the duty on the goods and they were entitled to take the credit on the duty paid inputs used in the manufacture of those goods, as per law. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned SDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order and argued that provisions of Section 11D over -rides the other provisions of law including that of Modvat credit. The impugned order according to him has been correctly passed.