TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the case of Commissioner, C.Ex. & Cus, Vadodara Vs Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2004 (12) TMI 93 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and Commissioner of C.Ex., Pune Vs Coca Cola India Pvt.Ltd [2007 (4) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. It is observed from the above case laws decided by the Hon ble Apex Court that it is not clear whether the extended period was invokable in these cases. It is further observed from the provisions of Rule 9(1)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 that CENVAT Credit is not admissible on a supplementary invoices where non-levy or short levy takes place on account of reason of fraud, collusion, or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts. In case, the extended period is held to be invokable, then the reci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 100% EOU in terms of CT-3 certificates without payment of duty, then no CENVAT Credit was required to be disallowed under Rule 3 4 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. That only after the Larger Bench judgment of Chennai Bench in the case of Lakshmi Automatic Loom Works Ltd Vs CCE Trichy [2008 (232) ELT 428 (Tri-LB)], it was held that removal of inputs to 100% EOU require reversal of CENVAT Credit taken on the inputs. The learned Advocate did not argue the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on merit in view of the Larger Bench judgment mentioned above, but argued that the extended period cannot be made applicable where the issue is decided by the Larger Bench as per the judgment of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE C. Vs Mafatla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rality, the learned Authorised Representative argued that as per Order of CESTAT Mumbai in the case of Automotive Stampings Assemblies Ltd Vs CCE, Pune-I [2015-TIOL-836-CESTAT-MUM], revenue neutrality is not applicable on the ground that the recipient of the goods is eligible to CENVAT Credit. 4. As a counter to the arguments made by learned Authorised Representative, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant made the Bench go through Para 5 of the order passed by CESTAT Mumbai in the case of Automotive Stampings Assemblies Ltd Vs CCE, Pune-I to argue that in that case before CESTAT Mumbai, the extended period was held to be invokable and it was held that the revenue neutrality is not applicable in every situation. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ersed when the inputs are cleared as such to a 100% EOU. The period involved in the present appeal is from 2005-06 to December 2009 and the show cause notice has been issued on 14.05.2010. It has been held by the jurisdictional Hon ble High Court in the case of CCE C. Vs Mafatlal Industries Ltd (supra) that extended period is not applicable in a situation, where the matter is subsequently decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. Para 7 of this judgment is reproduced below:- 7. The Tribunal in? its impugned order has found that on merits the order of Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be upheld in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Solaris Chemtech Ltd. , 2007 (214) E.L.T. 481. The Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter quoting the provisions of Rule 6 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, has held that there was a suppression with intention to evade duty and that the extended period was clearly applicable. Accordingly, it was held that the demand cannot be dropped on account of revenue neutrality. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant relied upon the order dt.03.07.2012 passed by this Bench in the case of Jayshree Instruments Pvt.Ltd. Vs CCE Ahmedabad-III (supra), wherein following observations were made by this Bench in Para 3 of the order:- 3. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that in this case, the appellant did not include the cost of inputs supplied by the principal even though they availed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that case and cannot be applied to the present case. 6.1 From the above observations of this Bench, the demand has been held to be not sustainable on account of revenue neutrality by relying upon the judgment in the case of Commissioner, C.Ex. Cus, Vadodara Vs Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2005 (179) ELT 276 (SC)] and Commissioner of C.Ex., Pune Vs Coca Cola India Pvt.Ltd [2007 (213) ELT 490 (SC)]. It is observed from the above case laws decided by the Hon ble Apex Court that it is not clear whether the extended period was invokable in these cases. It is further observed from the provisions of Rule 9(1)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 that CENVAT Credit is not admissible on a supplementary invoices where non-levy or sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
