Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 1298 - CESTAT AHMEDABADSimultaneous availment of the benefit of Notification No. 29/2004-C.E. and Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., both dated 9-7-2004 - Under C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 795/28/2004-CX, dated 28-7-2004, it was clarified that simultaneous availment of Notification No. 29/2004-C.E. and Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. was permissible subject to the condition that a manufacturer should maintain separate books of accounts for goods availing the benefit of these notifications - However, appellants were not maintaining separate accounts for the Cenvat credit taken for dyes and chemicals used in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods - credit availed on the input used in manufacture of such exempted goods was reversed subsequently - such reversal of credit is not equivalent to the credit availed - Invocation of extended period of limitation. Held that:- Total credit reversed by the first appellant during the period December 2004 to November 2005 was more than the pro rata credit required to be reversed and calculated by the Revenue. There was, therefore, no reason to reverse any credit or demand of duty for the period December 2004 to November 2005. It was, therefore, essential to provide the basis of short Cenvat reversal calculated by the Revenue. It is further pointed out by the advocate of the appellants that as per submissions dated 20-8-2013 filed by the Department now a credit of ₹ 55,94,675/-, ₹ 18,89,252/- and ₹ 19,77,942/- has been shown to be the balance credit required to be reversed by Appellant Nos. 1, 2 & 3 respectively. - The differences in amount calculations only indicate that the methodology adopted by the Revenue in calculating the reversal of Cenvat credit is not authentic. In the absence of any convincing data to the effect that reversal of Cenvat credit done by the appellants is not proper, it has to be held that reversal of Cenvat credit on pro rata basis was correctly done by Appellant Nos. 1, 2 & 3. So far as appellant No. 4 is concerned, already a credit of ₹ 8,33,578/- has been reversed against an amount of ₹ 6,91,464/- required to be reversed on pro rata basis. The quantum of reversal of Cenvat credit was never questioned by the Revenue. Once appellants declared the quantum of Cenvat credit reversed on the query of field formations, it cannot be held that there was any suppression on the part of the appellants with an intention to evade duty attracting extended period under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, extended period of demand was not invokable in the present proceedings and show cause notices have also to be held as time-barred. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|