TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of clearance of the inputs from their factory is not disputed by the Revenue. If that be so, I really fail to understand as to how the appellant is further required to reverse the SAD component. It stands explained to me that the appellant is maintaining only one register reflecting the credit of all the types of duties paid at the time of import. If the cumulative credit in respect of all the duties is to the extent of ₹ 100 and if an asseessee has paid ₹ 120/- at the time of clearance of such inputs, it can be safely concluded that the entire credit stands reversed by him. There cannot be any further requirement of reversal of SAD component separately. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02/03/2012 proposing to confirm the amount of ₹ 73,722/- along with interest in terms of the provisions of Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. 4. During the course of adjudication, the appellant contested the demand on merits as also on limitation. It was specifically pleaded by them that while paying duty of excise on the inputs sold by them, they have reversed much more than the total credit so availed by them. As such, there was no need to separately reverse the SAD credit. As regards limitation, they pleaded that the entire facts were in the knowledge of the Revenue and were part of their records, in which case, no mala fide can be attributed to them so as to justifiably invoke the longer period of limitation. They also pleade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y an amount equal to the credit availed in respect of such inputs. As such, the said provision of law simplicitor requires an assessee to reverse the CENVAT credit so availed by him in case the receipted inputs are subsequently removed. In the present case admittedly the appellant has paid excise duty by adopting transaction value of the said inputs by debiting the CENVAT credit. The said fact is not in dispute and stands mentioned in the impugned order of the original adjudicating authority, which, for ready reference, is reproduced below:- 19. Further, I find from the submission of the assessees that whenever imported inputs were cleared as such from their factory they have adopted the transaction value and excise duty was paid on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have complied with the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is not tenable. 8. As is seen from the above, the fact that appellant had paid more duty at the time of clearance of the inputs from their factory is not disputed by the Revenue. If that be so, I really fail to understand as to how the appellant is further required to reverse the SAD component. It stands explained to me that the appellant is maintaining only one register reflecting the credit of all the types of duties paid at the time of import. If the cumulative credit in respect of all the duties is to the extent of ₹ 100 and if an asseessee has paid ₹ 120/- at the time of clearance of such inputs, it can be safely concluded that the entire credit stands rever ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
