9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting authority disallowed the CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 12,01,233/- alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of CENVAT credit for the period 01.4.2006 to 06.9.2009. 2. The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant fairly submits that they are not disputing the demand of CENVAT credit of Rs. 4,61,879/-, which is a calculation error. He submits that they have already debited an amount of Rs. 4,61,879/- alongwith interest and the penal provisions should not invoke. He further submits that the balance amount of demand is not sustainable in view of the following decisions of the Tribunal :- (a) Jai Corp Limited vs. CCE & ST, Vapi - 2015 (317) ELT 489 (Tri. Ahmd.) (b) Sri Venkateshwara Precision Components vs. CCE, Chenn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... below:- "(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) and (7) sub-rule (4), - (a) CENVAT credit in respect of inputs or capital goods produced or manufactured, by a hundred per cent. export-oriented undertaking or by a unit in an Electronic Hardware Technology Park or in a Software Technology Park other than a unit which pays excise duty levied under section 3 of the Excise Act read with serial numbers 3, 5, 6 and 7 of notification No. 23/2003-Central Excise, dated the 31st March, 2003, [G.S.R. 266(E), dated the 31st March, 2003] and used in the manufacture of the final products or in providing an output service, in any other place in India, in case the unit pays excise duty under section 3 of the Excise Act read with serial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Excise Act;" 5. It is seen that the issue is no more res-integra in view of the decision in the case of Metaclad Industries vs. CCE, Mumbai (supra), followed by the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sri Venkateshwara Precision Components vs. CCE, Chennai (supra). It is noticed that the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jai Corp. Limited vs. CCE & ST Vapi (supra) approved the decision of the Single Member Bench in the case of Metaclad Industries vs. CCE, Mumbai. Relevant portions of the decision in the case of Metaclad Industries (supra) are reproduced below:- "2. The main appellant, M/s. Metaclad Industries availed CENVAT credit of the excise duty paid on the goods pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. The excise duty levied under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act is an eligible duty for CENVAT credit under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, Similarly in the case of imported goods, the additional duty paid under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act as well as under sub-section (5) of the said section are duties specified for availment as credit under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. If that be so, irrespective of the nature of the components of duty which is contained in the excise duty paid by an EOU, credit should be available under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 5.4 The clarification/amendment made in the said Rule in 2009 is only for the purpose of removal of doubts and not for any other reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
