9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,15,448/- against which the appellants had cenvat credit balance of Rs.33,638/- in their cenvat credit account. Therefore the appellants did not pay the amount of Rs.81,810/- by 5th of September, 2003. As per Rule 3(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, the appellants could have utilized the amount of Rs.33,638/- from the Cenvat credit account and the balance duty was required to be paid through PLA. However, the appellants instead of paying the amount of Rs.81,810/- from the PLA, they utilized the cenvat credit account which accrued to them for September, 2003 and paid the duty for the month of August, 2003 from their cenvat credit account on 21.09.2003. Similarly, for the month of September,2003, the appellants were required to pay duty amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be paid on monthly basis by 5th of the following month and as per proviso to Rule 3 (3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, that while paying duty, the cenvat credit shall be utilized to the extent such credit is available on the last day of the month for payment of duty relating to the month. Therefore, he submitted that the appellants have not paid duty by 5th of the following month, the provisions of Rule 3(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the demands are not sustainable for the month of August, 2003. For demand of September, 2003, he submitted that they received the goods on 30.9.2003 and took credit only on October, 2003 as the appellants have received the inputs physically in their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 and the appellants have failed to show gate pass for entry of the goods. Therefore, the contention of the appellants that they have physically received the goods on 30.09.2003 is not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned order is to be upheld. 5. Heard both sides and considered the submissions made by them. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, I find that in this case the demand has been made on two grounds i.e. (a) for demand of August, 2003 has been made on the ground that the same has been paid by utilizing the credit attributable to them for the month of September, 2003 and (b) for duty paid for September, 2003 in the month of October, 2003 whether the goods have been received physically by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
