Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2015 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 1446 - HC - Central ExciseRectifion of order of larger bench [2013 (4) TMI 532 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - Reversal of CENVAT Credit where duty has been remitted on destroyed goods - Whether in view of the provisions contained in Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the decisions of this Court in case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD-I v. GDN GARMENTS, reported in [2010 (7) TMI 431 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] and COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS V. BIOPAC INDIA CORPORATION LTD., reported in [2010 (7) TMI 433 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] lay down correct law in holding that even after remission of duty upon destruction of final product, the manufacturer is not required to reverse the Cenvat Credit on the inputs used in manufacturing such final product. Held that:- Full Bench has held that prior to introduction of sub-rule (5C) of rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, there was no provision, which provided for reversal of the credit by the excise authorities where it has been lawfully taken by a manufacturer and that by way of the amendment, a new right was created in favour of the revenue, it is evident that there is clear contradiction in the second part of the operative portion of the judgement, to the extent it is held that there is no scope of reversal unless any condition has been imposed for remission of duty in terms of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 making it clear that the credit already taken is to be reversed. In the opinion of this court, when the Full Bench has clearly held that prior to September 7, 2007, there was no statutory provision permitting the revenue authorities to direct reversal of credit already taken, the question of imposing any condition for reversal while granting remission of duty in terms of rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules would certainly not arise. Thus, it appears that the aforesaid part has crept in on account of inadvertent error and the same being in direct conflict with the main part of the judgment, requires to be deleted in the interest of justice. Powers of review can be exercised in rectifying an error in the earlier judgment. In the light of the above discussion, the applicant has clearly made out a case warranting exercise of review jurisdiction by this court. - The judgement and order dated 29.08.2012 passed by the Full Bench in Tax Appeals No.2520 of 2010, 896 of 2011 and 1586 of 2010, is hereby modified by deleting the following sentence from paragraph 20 of the said judgement: "Unless any condition has been imposed for remission of duty in terms of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 making it clear that the credit already taken is to be reversed" Decided in favor of Assessee.
|