TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovision in respect of some other component of input credit disentitled for such credit - Rule 3 of CCR, 2004 also has no such provision that Cenvat credit of NCCD paid if subsequently refunded through specific notification, is not entitled for availment. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/2295-2296/2009-EX(DB) - Final Order Nos. A/70931-70932/2016-EX(DB) - Dated:- 29-9-2016 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (J) and Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (T) Shri T.R. Rustogi, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Kamal Puggal, Asstt. Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (T)]. - The present two appeals are preferred against Order-in-Appeal Nos. 107 to 109-CE/NOIDA/2009, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unit. It appeared to Revenue that since there is no mention of said Notification No. 27/2001 in said Rule 12, under Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules of NCCD initially paid and subsequently refunded in terms of Notification No. 27/2001 was not admissible to appellant. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 2-4-2007 was issued to appellants calling upon them to show cause as to why Cenvat credit of ₹ 44,48,950/- of NCCD availed by them should not be recovered and the amount of ₹ 43,97,134/- already paid by them, should not be appropriated. The show cause notice also had proposal for interest and penalty. The said show cause notice also had proposal for imposition of personal penalty on Shri Puesh Kumar and Shri V. Santosh Kumar. The ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aggrieved by the said Order-in-Appeal dated 27-4-2009, M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. and Shri Puesh Kumar preferred appeals before this Tribunal. 5. Heard the ld. Counsel. The contention of learned counsel is that Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides for credit of duty paid on inputs. There is no dispute that said NCCD was paid on the inputs and credit of said NCCD paid on inputs was taken by the appellant. There is no prohibition in the said Rule that duty paid, if subsequently refunded by any other provision, is not admissible as Cenvat credit. Non-mention of Notification No. 27/2001 in Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 does not make the appellants disentitled for said Cenvat credit. 6. The ld. DR for Revenue has supporte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
