TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date of opting for exemption - against assesee - directed to make pre deposit. - E/1141/2011 - 168/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 24-1-2012 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Shri Sahab Singh, JJ. REPRESENTED BY: Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri I. Beg, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. After hearing Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate in support of stay petition and Shri I. Beg, SDR for the respondent. 2. We find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper board. Prior to April, 2009, the appellant was clearing their final products i.e. papers on payment of full rate of duty, after availing the benefit of Modvat credit of duty, paid on the inputs and capital goods. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the appellant in terms of the provisions of Rule 11(3)(i) and Rule 11(3)(ii). For better appreciation, we reproduce the said rule :- Rule 11(3). A manufacturer or producer of a final product shall be required to pay an amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit, if any, taken by him in respect of inputs received for use in the manufacture of the said final product and is lying in stock or in process or is contained in the final product lying in stock, if - (i) he opts for exemption from whole of the duty of excise leviable on the said final product manufactured or produced by him under a notification issued under section 5A of the Act, or (ii) the said final product has been exempted absolutely under Section 5A of the Act, and after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng back to the full rate of duty, the appellant was not entitled to again avail the same credit inasmuch as the said inputs were no longer available with him. As such, we find no prima facie case in favour of the appellant so as to allow the stay petition unconditionally. At this stage. Ld. Advocate submits that out of the total duty of Rs. 2.38 Crores approximately confirmed against him, an amount of Rs. 1.28 crores approximately relate to the service tax credit. He submits that the provisions of the said rules do not relate to the reversal of the service tax credit. We find favour with the above statement of the Ld. Advocate. Admittedly, the said provisions are for reversal of the Modvat credit in respect of the inputs, lying in stock. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
