9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of duty and the goods cleared by availing full duty exemption and were not maintaining separate account and inventory of inputs meant for dutiable and exempted final products, in accordance with the Provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, they paid an amount equal to 10% of the sale value of the good under the mistaken belief that the provisions of Rule 6(1), (2) and (3) are applicable. The amount had been paid through cenvat credit and the amount paid was Rs. 9,80,354/-. Subsequently, when they realized that in view of the provisions of Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, in respect of the supplies made against international competitive bidding by availing full exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE the provisions of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules, 2004, in respect of the goods supplied against international competitive bidding by availing full duty exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE (Serial NO. 91), the provisions sub-rule (1), (2), (3) and (4) of Rule 6 ibid are not applicable; that the appellant wrongly reversed the cenvat credit amount of Rs. 9,84,354/- under Rule 6(3)(b) which they were not required to reverse and as soon as the appellant came to know about this, they informed the Department for permitting the recredit; that subsequently, on January, 2009 they also informed the department that they were going to take the re-credit of this amount; that accordingly, when there was no order by the Department, they took the re-credit in March 2009; that after three we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department for the re-credit and when in pursuance of their request for re-credit, the same had been allowed by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 20.04.2009 just because the appellant had taken the re-credit on their own on 31.03.2008, there would be no justification for imposition of penalty when the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 20.04.2009 had permitted the re-credit of Rs. 9,80,354/- this credit would be treated as available for the month 2009 and hence there would be no excess utilization of credit during that month. In view of this, the cenvat credit demand and penalty does not appear to be sustainable. 6. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Dicta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
