TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nov' 05, they took CENVAT credit of Rs. 53,74,651/- equal to the total amount of CVD and Education Cess debited in DEPB licence. The department objected to the availment of credit on two grounds that viz. (a) credit could be availed only of an amount of duty paid in cash and (b) such availment was not permissible in the absence of a document specified under Rule 9(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR 2004, for short). The appellants contested this objection of the department on legal grounds. In adjudication of the dispute, ld. Commissioner ordered recovery of the above credit from the appellants under Rule 14 of the CCR 2004 read with Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, along with interest under Rule 14 ibid read with Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held the credit to be inadmissible to the party. Ld. counsel has relied on the Board's Circular No. 59/2004-Cus., dated, 21-10-2004 wherein it was clan- fled in relation to DEPB scheme that, after the promulgation of Notification No. 96/2004-Cus. ibid, the benefit of CENVAT credit of CVD paid through debit in DEPB on imported goods would be available to the importer. Ld. counsel has also referred to the Boards circular No. 27/2006-Cus. dated 13-10-2006, wherein after consulting the Ministry of Law and Justice, the Board clarified that CENVAT credit of CVD paid on goods imported under Duty Free Credit Entitlement (DFCE) Scheme and Target Plus Scheme (TPS) could be availed by importers without amendment of the CENVAT Credit Rules. Ld. couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idered the relevant conditions of Notification No. 96/2004 to be pari materia with those of Notification No. 34/97. According to ld. counsel, in view of the Board's clarifications, which are binding on the Revenue, the appellants are entitled to the Cenvat credit in question. We have heard Id. SDR also, who has reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority. His emphasis is on the texts of Rule 3(1) and Rule 9(1) of the CCR 2004. Upon strict interpretation of these rules, ld. SDR is of the view that the appellants are not entitled to CENVAT credit of CVD not paid in cash and, that too without the requisite duty-paying documents. 3. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we have found substance in the plea of ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... culars of DEPB licences, particulars of registration thereof with the Customs authorities, value of the goods and quantum of debit. We find that these particulars were duly verified by the proper officer of Customs and certified by him. The credits in question are of the amounts of debits recorded in the Bills of Entry and certified by the proper officer. It is not in dispute that a Bill of Entry is one of the documents specified under Rule 9(1) of the CCR 2004 for the purpose of availment of CENVAT credit. We, therefore, hold that the appellants are entitled to CENVAT credit of the amounts debited in DEPB as certified in the Bills of Entry. The credit in question was taken on the strength of the Bills of Entry. There was no warrant for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
