TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.2007 the Tax Research Unit of CBEC has issued Circular No. 334/1/2007-TRU dt. 28.02.2007 clarifying that it will come into effect immediately. The letter does not suggest that Rule 11(3) was supposed to have retrospective effect. Therefore, we find that it has never been the intention to give retrospective application to Rule 11(3). The issue in hand has been addressed by the Tribunal in the above decision whereby it was held that Rule 11(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 though provides for reversal of unutilized Cenvat credit but the same cannot be applied retrospectively in the absence of specific provision under the statute. The appellant is neither liable to reverse the accumulated Cenvat credit of ADE (T TA) nor the demand of the same is sustainable - Appeal allowed. - EXCISE APPEAL NO. 12251 OF 2014-DB - FINAL ORDER NO. 11634/2023 - Dated:- 2-8-2023 - HON BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MR. C. L. MAHAR , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri S. Suryanarayanan , Advocate for the Appellant Shri P. Ganesan , Superintendent ( AR ) for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR : Brief facts of the case are that appellant are engaged in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 70 ELT 351 (c) Tractor and Farm Equipment Limited vs. CCE, Madurai 2014 SCC Online Mad 11549 (d) Ramco Inernational Ors vs. CCE, Jallandhar 2014 SCC Online CESTAT 618 (e) IBM India Private Limited vs. CCE, Pondicherry - 2019 SCC Online CESTAT 6717 3. He further submits that entire demand is time-barred as the appellant s action of taking credit and carrying forward was declared in ST-3 returns since a long time i.e. from 2004 that ADE(T TA) was made exempted. The show cause notice was issued on 26.11.2012 in respect of the credit lying unutilized as on 09.07.2004 when the ADE(T TA) was exempted vide Notification No. 31/2004-CE and thereafter the same was carried forward. Therefore, there is no suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. Hence, extended period is not invokable. 4. Shri P. Ganesan, learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 5. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and perusal of the record, we find that in the present case, the Revenue has sought to demand Cenvat credit of ADE(T TA) lying unutilized and carried forward since 2004 on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand for reversal of the Cenvat credit is without any authority of law applicable during the relevant period. We have considered the order of the Tribunal Delhi in the case of Albert David (supra) upheld by the Supreme Court, which was issued in the context of erstwhile Modvat Credit Rules. We also note that the Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of TAFE (India) (supra), has considered the case law of Albert David also in the context of the introduction of Rule 11(3) of CCR 2004 and held that this sub-rule had only prospective application and not retrospective application. 20. We also find that after the introduction of Rule 11(3) by Notification No. 10/2007 dt. 01.03.2007 the Tax Research Unit of CBEC has issued Circular No. 334/1/2007-TRU dt. 28.02.2007 clarifying that it will come into effect immediately. The letter does not suggest that Rule 11(3) was supposed to have retrospective effect. Therefore, we find that it has never been the intention to give retrospective application to Rule 11(3). In consequence, demand on this count along with interest and penalties on this account needs to be set aside and we do so, 21. As far as the demand on account of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 1st March 2011 [2011 (268) E.L.T. 49 (Kar.)] after referring to the various judgments held that once the input credit is legally taken and utilized on the dutiable final product, it need not be reversed on the final product being exempted subsequently. Only if any products are purchased subsequent to the said exemption and if any tax is paid on such inputs, as the final product is exempted from payment of tax, the assessee would not be entitled to avail the Cenvat credit on such inputs. But the Cenvat credit availed on such inputs till the date of exemption, they vest in the assessee and the assessee cannot be divested of that credit as the law does not provide for the same. Therefore, the authorities taking advantage of the notification exempting the final product cannot claim reversal of Cenvat credit either in respect of final product which have come into existence on the date of the notification or on the inputs stored in the godown or the work in progress and finished products. Therefore, the judgment in the aforesaid case squarely applies to the case on hand and the Tribunal was justified in granting benefit, 6. It was pointed out to us that in the year 2008 (sic) sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
