9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the value or quantity of clearances in a financial year, and he has been taking CENVAT credit on inputs or input services, before such option is exercised, he shall be required to pay an amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit, if any, allowed to him, in respect of inputs lying in stock or in process or contained in final products lying in stock on the date when such option is exercised and after deducting the said amount from the Cenvat credit balance, if any, lying in his credit, the balance amount of Cenvat credit if any still remaining, shall lapse and shall not be allowed to be utilized for payment of duty on any excisable goods, whether cleared for home consumption or for export. In this case undisputedly the appellant were availi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcial Ltd, reported in 2008 (224) ELT 239 (P&H). He also pleaded that CENVAT credit demand is time barred as the appellant were filing ER-1 returns regularly wherein the availment of CENVAT credit was declared. He, therefore, stated that no information was suppressed from the department and hence the longer period cannot be invoked. He, accordingly, pleaded that the appellant have a strong prima facie case in their favour and, hence, the requirement of pre-deposit of Cenvat credit demand, interest and penalty may be waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery thereof may be stayed during pendency of appeal. 4. Learned D.R. Shri R.K. Mathur opposing the stay application pleaded that the appellants case is squarely covered by Rule 11(2) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants case is covered by the provisions of Rule 11(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, and the provisions of this sub-rule are clear and unambiguous, the same have to be given effect to and there is no scope for giving an interpretation to the provisions of Rule 11(2) which is at variance from the natural grammatical meaning of the wordings of this rule. 6. However, on limitation we are of the view that the appellants may have a good case and as such entire duty demand may not be within limitation period. 7. Considering all these aspects and keeping in view the fact that the appellant have already paid an amount of Rs. 4,19,965/- along with interest of Rs. 61,789/- we hold that the amount already paid is sufficient for hearing of this appeal. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
