9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 854X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd laminated glass falling under Chapter Headings 7007 1900, 7007 8001 and 7007 2900 of the Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA), 1985. The appellants were eligible for SSI exemption during the financial year 2005-06 and 2006-07 under Notification No.8/2003 dated 1.3.2003 and cleared goods valued up to Rs. 100 lakh at nil rate and above Rs. 100 lakh at 16% duty during the period after crossing the exemption limit of Rs. 100/- lakh and also availed CENVAT credit. The appellant availed CENVAT credit of Rs. 2,16,445/- on the input contents of the finished goods lying in stock on 14.10.2005 on crossing the exemption limit during 2005-06 as per Rule 3(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004, and utilised CENVAT credit of Rs. 2,16,445/- during 2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailing SSI exemption and then entering dutiable sector. He further submitted that the appellant did not avail any credit in 2005-06 to reverse it on 31.3.2006 nor avail SSI exemption from 1.4.2006 and the entire proceedings were initiated based on the assumption that the appellant availed credit of inputs during 2005-06 which ought to have been reversed to avail SSI exemption from 1.4.2006. He further submitted that the lapse committed by the appellant together with the non-reversal of credit with inputs and semi-finished goods were made good by the appellant by paying an amount of Rs. 2,17,061/- with interest up to 1.1.2008 the date on which payments were made. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after deducting the said amount from the balance, if any, lying in his credit, the balance, if any, still remaining shall lapse and shall not be allowed to be utilised for payment of duty on any excisable goods, whether cleared for home consumption or for export." After crossing the SSI exemption limit in 2005-06, the appellant cleared their goods on payment of duty and did not avail the CENVAT credit of the inputs in their lying stock of finished goods at that point of time. In the following year 2006-07, they again opted for the SSI exemption making them ineligible to avail of the credit in balance. Thus, the CENAT credit of Rs. 2,16,445/- availed and utilised by the appellant in 2007-08 is not bound by law and is liable to be demanded a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
