Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (11) TMI 1336

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... te. These facts are not disputed. The bone of contention is regarding the excess credit the appellant had in their account on 01.08.2005. There were no instructions or legal requirement to expunge (lapse) the said excess credit on 01.08.2005. However, by introduction of sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 on 01.03.2007, such provisions to lapse , such excess credit was introduced. - Appellants have fulfilled the conditions of the notification and therefore, they are eligible for the benefit of the said notification. Any violation of sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 should invite necessary action under Rule 14 & 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 only and cannot be extended to the extent of denying the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... redit on the inputs which were physically available in stock on 01.08.2005. They also cleared the finished goods which were in stock on 01.08.2005 on payment of duty. However, they had excess credit in CENVAT account on 01.08.2005 which pertained to the credit of duty on inputs which were already utilised in the manufacture of the finished goods which were already cleared on payment of duty before 01.08.2005. There was no clarity on 01.08.2005 regarding what is to be done with this excess CENVAT Credit which was available with them on the said date of opting the said notification. However, subsequently, on 01.03.2007, sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 was introduced. The said rule is reproduced below:- (3) A manuf .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... apse, the Appellant is not eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No.30/2004-CE. He, therefore, denied the duty exemption to the finished goods under Notification No.30/2004-CE in regard to the clearances made during April 2006 to July 2010 and August 2010 to January 2012. 4. Heard both sides. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, which is a separate provision, is not a part of the Notification No.30/2004-CE. He argued that they have fulfilled the conditions of notification in its entirety and therefore, the clearances of their finished goods free of duty under the provisions of the notification are legally correct. His another contention is that su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s of the provisions of not only of the said sub-rule (3), but also the proviso to the Notification No.30/2004-CE. He argued that carrying forward the excess credit tantamount to the Appellant availing fresh credit which was utilised for clearance of capital goods. As the Notification No.30/2004-CE did not allow fresh credit to be taken, the same amounted to violation of Notification No.30/2004-CE. He reiterates the arguments of the Adjudicating authority and drew the attention of the Bench to the findings of the Adjudicating authority. 7. On careful consideration of the submissions of both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the Appellant opted for the benefit of Notification No.30/2004-CE on 01.08.2005. They reversed t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... prior to 01.03.2007. Even if they had opted for the benefit of notification before 01.03.2007, they were required to expunge such credit when the rules were amended and the sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 was introduced. We agree with the learned Authorised Representative that the Appellant had committed the said contravention in this respect. But the question is whether the said contravention amounts to violation of the notification, whereby the clearances of finished goods duty free under the said notification, can be denied to the Appellant. We find that the Appellants have fulfilled the conditions of the notification and therefore, they are eligible for the benefit of the said notification. Any violation of sub- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates