BALBIR ROLLING MILLS LIMITED Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE relevant facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are the manufacturer of CTD Bars of Iron and Steel classified under sub -heading No. 7214.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. The appellant removed the excisable goods during the period from July 2002 to October 2002 without payment of Central Excise duty in pursuance of notification No. 16/01 -CE dated 26/03/01 as amended along with dutiable finished goods. The appellant neither maintained separate account of the inputs in respect of the dutiable and exempted finished goods nor paid the amount @ 8% of the value of the exempted goods as per Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002. Subsequently, the appellant reversed the amount of Rs. 5,24,855.00 on 30.7.2003 in their RG 23A Part II account. The adjudicating authority confirmed the entire amount of duty and also imposed penalty of equal amount. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant voluntary reversed the entire amount of duty in their RG -23A Part -II account vide entry serial No. 329 dated 30/07/03 and there is no allegation that the appellant had any malafide intention to evade duty and therefore penalty was set aside. The appellant filed this appeal against the reversal of credit.

(2.) THE learned advocate on behalf of the appellant fairly submits that the issue involved in this case is decided by the Larger Bench on the Tribunal in the case of Rallies India Limited v. CCE, Salem as reported in 2007 (208) E.L.T. 25 (Tri. - Larger Bench) against the assessee. However, he submits that the Larger Bench while deciding the matter had not taken into consideration that the exempted goods supplied for Gujarat earthquake relief cannot be subject to duty and Rule 6(3)(b) of the said Rules 2002 would not apply in this case.

(3.) HEARD the learned DR on behalf of the Revenue. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the present case is squarely covered by the Larger Bench in the case of Rallies India Ltd. (Supra) against the appellant. I, further find that the contention of the learned advocate had taken into consideration by the Larger Bench and the relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below: