Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1407 - CESTAT BANGALORECENVAT Credit - suo moto re-credit - appellants have availed the credit and paid the duty through CENVAT credit which was in violation of Rule 8(3A) of the CCR - improper documents - ineligibility in terms of Rule 9 and Rule 11(2) of CCR - HELD THAT:- Both the authorities have wrongly held that appellants have taken the credit on the basis of challan which is not a valid document to take CENVAT credit as per Rule 9 of the CCR. Perusal of statement of input credit submitted by the appellant for the period October-December 2014, the appellants have used the words “CENVAT credit reversed 05/10/2013 to 26/11/2013 - further, the appellant was asked to reverse the credit earned and utilized by them only on 26/11/2014 and thereafter he paid the amount and interest in cash and once he paid the amount and the interest in cash on 26/11/2014, then he is entitled to take the recredit of input credit because there is no dispute by the Department that the appellant has once paid the duty through the CENVAT credit and subsequently at the instance of the Department paid the duty in cash along with interest and thereafter has taken the recredit in the cenvat credit account. On identical facts, the Tribunal in the case of total Environment Woodwork P. Ltd. Vs. CCE, C&ST, Bangalore-I [2017 (1) TMI 1534 - CESTAT BANGALORE] has held that once it is proved that the appellant has paid the duty twice once through CENVAT credit and again in cash along with interest, then the appellant is well within his right to take the recredit of the same - In the present case also, firstly the appellant has paid the duty through CENVAT credit account during the disputed period and later on at the direction of the Superintendent, they paid the duty along with interest in cash and took recredit in their CENVAT credit account which is permitted in law as he is not required to pay the duty twice. The impugned order denying the recredit is not sustainable in law and therefore the impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|