TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tore and spares fully - also, the inputs for which the provisions of write off was provisionally made was subsequently used in the manufacture as per the provisions of Rule 3(5B). There was no recovery mechanism to recover the cenvat credit wrongly taken under the provisions of Rule 3(5B) and the recovery mechanism was brought into existence from 01.03.2013 vide N/N. 3/2013-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2013 - the demand of cenvat credit for the inputs for which the provision to write off has been made is not sustainable in law. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/21420/2017-SM - 22875/2017 - Dated:- 17-11-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri Vishwasan, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Parasivamurhty N.K., De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in their books of accounts for the years 2012, they have not reversed the cenvat credit availed on those written off stock with an intention to avail the ineligible cenvat credit and thereby have contravened the provisions of Rule 3 (5B) of the CCR. On these allegations a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant demanding duty of ₹ 4,42,500/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Two Thousand and Five Hundred only) along with interest and penalties under Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules. The original authority after following the due process of law vide Order-in-Original dated 25.07.2014 confirmed the demand along with interest and also imposed penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spare parts fully. 3.1. It is the further submission of the appellant that there was no recovery mechanism to recover the cenvat credit attributable to the value of inputs in respect of which the provision to write off fully or partially has been made under Rule 3(5B) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 and for this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: a) Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs. Hercules Mech Works - 2009 (248) E.L.T. 695 (Tri.-Mum.) b) Solectron Centum Electronics Ltd. Vs. CCE (A), Bangalore - 2009 (240) E.L.T. 51 (Tribunal) c) Krishna Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2005 (186) E.L.T. 318 d) Eternit Everest Ltd. Vs. UOI - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 28 (Mad.) 3.2. Appellant has al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the provisions of Rule 3 (5B). 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the record and the various decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra including their own case, I find that in this case the appellant has made provision to write off the value of inputs partially in their books of accounts as per the policy of the company which does not allow to make any provision to write off obsolescence stock on store and spares fully. Further I also find that the inputs for which the provisions of write off was provisionally made was subsequently used in the manufacture as per the provisions of Rule 3(5B). Further I also find that there was no recovery mechanism to recover the cenvat credit wrongly take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
