9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e M/s. Ercon Composites, a 100% EOU. 2. The dispute in the present appeal relates to as to whether while clearing the said inputs against CT-3 certificates the appellant is liable to reverse the cenvat credit availed on the same. The lower authorities, by resorting to the provisions of Rule 3(4) of the erstwhile Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, which require an assessee to pay an amount equal to the credit availed in respect of inputs which are removed from the factory as such, confirmed the demand of Rs. 15,440/-. 3. Hence the present appeal. 4. The appellants have pleaded categorically that at the time of clearance of the said inputs from their factory against CT-3 certificate the duty stands debited by them in bond equal to the duty amount. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is not in dispute that the assessee while purchasing the said goods for its DTA nit has paid duty. It is only when those inputs as such were removed to the EHTP unit, the Cenvat Credit availed was reversed. It is because, if the assessee had purchased those inputs for its EHTP unit by virture of aforesaid Notification, there was no duty payable, as the said inputs were removed with the previous permission of the department as reflected in CT-3. There was no liability to pay the duty and already Cenvat Credit has been taken, it was reversed under protest and therefore, they were entitled to the refund of the said amount. That question is also answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue." 6. The said decision of the Hon'bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not utilize the same for payment of duty they could have claimed refund. Therefore the situation was totally revenue neutral and assessee by resorting to the procedure of issue of CT-3 certificate and obtaining the inputs without paying duty did not get any undue benefit at the cost of the Revenue, when the situation is totally revenue neutral, and in the circumstances discussed above, extended period could not have been invoked at all. Therefore on the ground of limitation also, the appellant has a strong case and the whole demand is not sustainable. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not at all discussed the issue of limitation, since he allowed the appeal filed by the respondent on merits he considered that, that would be suffici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
