Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 314 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - inputs used in both dutiable as well as exempted goods - non-maintenance of separate records - Rule 6 of the credit Rules - Held that:- The cenvat credit for an amount much more than what has been confirmed by the original adjudicating authority has already been reversed - Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Nagpur [1995 (12) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has held that once cenvat credit is reversed, it is to be considered ab initio not availed, the appellant herein in compliance of Rule 6 (a) as had also intimated about exercising the option of availing the amended provisions contained in Cenvat Credit Rules 2002 and Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 for the period April 2004 to 31st March, 2008 vide their letter dated 2nd November, 2011. Demand in respect of financial year 2008.09 for an amount of ₹ 8,85,719/- - Held that:- It is observed that the same is based on 10% of sale-price of exempted goods and that the Department has not computed the quantum of credit actually attributable to the exempted goods, as is otherwise been clarified in the CA certificated and also is apparent from the verification report. Thus, the demand for this period is also held to not to be sustainable. Violation of rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - interpretation of statute - Held that:- The appellant is entitled to exercise the option as provided under Rule 6(3) in absence of maintaining the proper records. The word used in the provision is ‘option’, which clarifies that it is the appellant who has liberty to decide which option to be exercised and Revenue cannot insist the appellant to avail a particular option - Where the assessee has categorically by way of intimation opted for option provided under 6(3)(ii), CCR then the Revenue cannot insist the assessee to opt for Rule 6(3)(i) - the Adjudicating Authority has failed to interpret Rule 6(3) CCR properly while confirming the impugned demand. Thus, it is clear that the demand at 10% /8% as proposed and confirmed is the forced demand denying the option as is granted by the legislation to the assessee. Time Limitation - Held that:- The records of appellant had regularly been reviewed and were reviewed even in the year 2006 as well. But the department did not raise any dispute at that time. Also the things were absolutely in their notice after the letter of the appellant dated 02.11.2010 intimating about their option - SCN is barred by limitation of time. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|