2016 (11) TMI 1282

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the CENVAT credit amount had been wrongly reversed by them during the period from May, 2007 to April, 2008 for the LPG cleared  availing exemption under Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 to various public sector undertaking who ultimately distributed the same under Public Distribution Scheme (PDS).  A show cause notice was issued to them on 27.08.2008 proposing rejection of the refund claim on the ground that the reversal of the credit was in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.  On adjudication, the refund was rejected.  Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who in rejected their appeal.  Hence, the present app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... able to the LPG cleared for domestic purposes by availing benefit of Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006. In support of his contention, he referred to the correspondences between the department and appellant enclosed at pages 94 to 97 of the appeal paper book.  He submits that  Clause (viii) of Sub Rule 3(a) of Rule 6 of the CCR, 2004, lays down that proportionate credit attributable to the LPG, on which exemption is claimed, required to be reversed.  It is his contention that once the provision under the said Cenvat Credit Rules is unambiguous and clear there is no question of any interpretation as to whether the exemption is conditional or absolute.  5.  Heard both sides and perused the records.  The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... put services used in our in relation of LPG used for domestic purpose and accordingly reversed the same periodically  as per the  said Rules.  The case laws  referred by the Appellant, in my opinion, is not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case, in  inasmuch as in the said case, the issue involved was whether the by-product, namely, sulphuric acid cleared to fertilizer plants, would be subjected to 8% of the price, as per Rule 57 CC of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944.  The factual  matrix  of  the   said  case  was  totally  different.   In these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. Co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X