TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant. Shri S. Shah, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per: Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President (Oral)]. - Heard the ld. Advocate for the appellant and ld. DR for the Respondent. Appellants challenges the Order dated 9th of March, 2009 passed by the Commissioner, In dore whereby the demand for an amount of Rs. 1,69,24,709/-, has been confirmed in terms of explanation (ii) to the Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 14 of the said Rules and Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest thereon in terms of Section 11AB of the said Act and penalty of equal amount besides the penalty of Rs. 2,000/- in terms of Rule 15(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 has been imposed. 2. The ld. Advocat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellants and, therefore, such a reversal of credit cannot be of any benefit to the appellant. In that regard and the case in hand the reversal having been done in the month of 30th November, 2008 in relation to the period from Jan., 2005 to March, 2008, the said reversal cannot be of any benefit to the appellant. Further, placing reliance in the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of Nicholas Piramel (I) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I reported in 2008 (232) E.L.T. 37, it is also sought to be contended that apart from the fact that such a reversal cannot be of any benefit to the assessee, the law on the point being very clearly' comprised under Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, that there is no case mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to the relevant period. The relevant period was from Jan., 2005 to March, 2008. Apart from the provisions of law, the judicial pronouncements clearly lay down that reversal of the credit has to be before the utilization of the credit. This has been clearly laid down in various orders passed by this Tribunal after taking note of the decision in the matter of Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. (supra) as well as the Supreme Court judgment in the matter of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. (3) (S.C.). Being so, merely be cause the reversal has been done after its utilization, prima facie such a defence may not be of any avail to the assessee to avoid the liability which assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2171135 Nil 2171135 217114 (@ 10%) 3. 05-06 14108353 106472798 120581151 12058115 (@10%) 4. 06-07 23191870 Nil 23191870 2319187 (@10%) 5. 07-08 10726371 Nil 10726371 1072637 (@10%) Total 1,69,24,709/- 6. The appellant therefore have failed to make out any prima facie case for total waiver of demand made under the impugned order. However, taking into consideration various contentions sought to be raised in the matter, certainly the case has been made out for waiver of the demand in relation to the interest and penalty amount imposed under the impugned order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
