Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 317 - CESTAT AHMEDABADBenefit of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. denied - no balance of inputs/semi-finished products/finished products with the assessee - liability of duty on the finished goods cleared by them by availing the benefit of the said notification confirmed with interest on the said amount and penalties - Held that:- It is an admitted fact that the appellant had only carried forward the closing balance in the monthly returns filed with the departmental authorities and there was no utilization of the said amount in any of the months, as the appellant need not have to discharge duty finished goods, after availment of notification No. 30/2004-C.E. It is to be noted that there is no dispute as to the fact that from 10th March, 2005, when the assessee-appellant opted for the availment of exemption provided under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., he has not availed any Cenvat credit on the inputs which were procured, for manufacture of final products. The above said condition is only to dissuade an assessee, to avail double benefit i.e. to avail Cenvat credit and also to claim benefit of exemption of payment of excise duty given in the notification. As the Adjudicating Authority’s findings on this point only states that the appellant had availed Cenvat credit prior to exercise of option to benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., had been lying idle in their Cenvat credit and had to be reversed prior to or on claiming benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. The basic point which is missed by the Adjudicating Authority in the entire exercise, is that if there are no inputs/semi-finished goods lying in stock as on 10th March, 2005, when the assessee exercised an option, the Cenvat credit could not be utilized for any other purpose and has to be considered as lapsed as per the provision of Cenvat credit rules, which were in force during the period. Also take note that the appellant, as per direction in the stay order, has specifically written to the authorities indicating that the amount of credit which was carried forward by them has to be treated as lapsed while exercising the option for exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004. If that be so, no reason to deny the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. from the date they exercised the option - in favour of assessee.
|