TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al - the suo motu taking credit of Cenvat credit debited in excess due to clerical mistake, whether the same is in violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules? - Held that: - the issue is no longer res-integra and this issue have been considered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III Vs Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. [2006 (7) TMI 223 - HIGH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any recovery of Cenvat credit taken of an amount of pre-deposit made during pendency of appeal, taken suo motu. Thus, I hold that the show cause notices in both the matters are misconceived. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - E/2385, 2507 & 2625/2008-EX[DB] - Final Order No. 70910-70912/2016 - Dated:- 19-9-2016 - Mr. Anil Choudhary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case are that the appellant engaged in manufacture of edible oils, bulk drugs, P.P. medicines and essential oils etc. claimed classification under Tariff Heading 3003.20 of their manufactured products being Machandanadi Tail, Stimulex Capsule, and Erand Oil (Castor Oil). The Revenue vide show cause for the period June, 2002 to November 2004 proposed classification under the different heading be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ptember, 2005 amounting to ₹ 12, 87, 900+ ₹ 25,759/-. The said amount, on being realised have been wrongly debited in excess, the appellant took suo-motu re-credit in the month of November, 2005 which was objected to by the revenue that the same appears to be in violation of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and accordingly the amount of credit taken suo motu was demanded under Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me bar. The amount paid should be considered as deposit and not duty. Further, on going through the relevant provisions of Rule 12 of CCR, 2002 or Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 which provides for recovery of Cenvat taken wrongly or erroneously, does not call for any recovery of Cenvat credit taken of an amount of pre-deposit made during pendency of appeal, taken suo motu. Thus, I hold that the show cause n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
