TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1030X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It has also to be mentioned that appellant took re-credit within a period of about two months. In the peculiar facts presented by this case, the credit having been reversed as per the letter issued by department, there would be no impediment in taking re-credit of the same - Appeal allowed. - E/3493/2012 - Final Order No. A/30166/2016 - Dated:- 8-2-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (J) Shri Lalit Mohan Chandna, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Shastry, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant is engaged in manufacture of sponge iron, MS Ingots and TMT bars. They are also availing credit on inputs and capital goods. The appellants were issued a show cause notice dated 30-7-2009 alleging irregular availment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he period 1/2009 to 7/2009. The department, then to cover up the lapse on their part issued a letter to reverse the credit for the period 1/2009 to 7/2009. Appellant reversed the credit only upon the direction of their letter. The appellants then informed the department vide letter dated 30-9-2010, that the issue for the remaining period is being contested and that they are not liable to reverse the credit. It was also informed that they are taking back the credit which was reversed. The credit so taken for second time was to restore the credit actually availed on duty paying documents initially. But the department issued a show cause notice alleging that the credit is not admissible as it is not availed on proper documents. In the show cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department about their intention. It is only thereafter that the present show cause notice is issued alleging that suo motu taking of credit is not legal or proper. There was no allegation that credit is not admissible on MS items. The original authority has therefore not discussed the admissibility of credit availed on invoices of MS items. There is no allegation that the appellants availed suo motu credit and therefore credit is not admissible. The original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) have held that credit cannot be allowed, because suo motu taking of credit is not legal and proper, which is beyond the scope of show cause notice. The AR placed reliance on the judgment of CESTAT laid in Vighnahar SSK Ltd. v. CCE, Pune - 2012 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
