9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the facts of the case are that on scrutiny of records of the appellant it was noticed that they had purchased raw materials from a 100% EOU and availed Cenvat Credit thereon. On detailed verification it was found that the appellant had availed cenvat credit of Rs. 3,93,258/- in excess of the permissible credit as per the formula under Rule 3(7) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant reverse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by them. In this work sheet, the total amount worked out was Rs. 3,93,258/-. It is his submission that while the show cause notice says that wrong formula has been applied under Rule 3(7) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, it does not say what is the correct formula. Further, even the original adjudicating authority, while accepting the stand taken by the appellant that the formula was not applicable i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vation of the department the appellant is eligible for full amount of education cess as credit. This itself would show that there was mistake on both sides, department as well as appellant. He submits that under these circumstances, it cannot be said that appellants could not take the credit under the bonafide that they were eligible for the same. 3. Learned AR would submit that the show c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal adjudicating authority has also not indicated what was the formula has to be adopted. In the result, we only know that there was an excess availment of Rs. 35,312/- as cenvat credit but we do not know whether it was because of calculation mistake or because of application of wrong formula. Under these circumstances, the fact that appellants paid cenvat credit including the education cess of m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
