TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 955X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, debit of SED of ₹ 13,29,776/- after availing the same on 01.01.2002 has satisfied the requirement of Rule 57 AB of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 3 (4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 - appeal allowed. - E/2636/2007-EX[SM] - A/71779/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 26-10-2017 - Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Ms. Stuti Saggi (Advocate) - for Appellant Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi (Asstt. Commr.) AR - for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar Present appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.163-CE/MRT-II/07 dated 27.07.2007 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Meerut-II. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant i.e. M/s Tuftwan Petroc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on the date of such removal and on the value determined for such goods under Section 4 of the said Central Excise Act, 1944, the appellant was issued an notice to show cause dated 28.06.2002 demanding Central Excise Duty of ₹ 35,64,951/- under Rule 57 AB (1)(b) and said Rule 3(4). 3. The show cause notice dated 28.06.2002 was adjudicated through Order-in-Original dated 30.10.2006. The appellant submitted before the Original Authority that they had cleared inputs as such on payment of appropriate amount before issue of show cause notice dated 28.06.2002. The Original Authority confirmed the demand amounting to ₹ 27,63,636/- under Section 11 A of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 57 AB (1)(b) of Central Excise Ruled. 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, therefore, there was no short reversal of Cenvat Credit on removal of inputs as such. 5. Heard the learned AR who has supported the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 6. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of records I find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dealt with aspect of payment of duty in respect of clearances made during the period from April, 2001 to December, 2001. However, I find from the proceedings that the issue was not related to payment of duty but the issue was related to reversal of Cenvat Credit on removal of inputs as such I, further, find that Cenvat Credit of SED availed by the appellant on 01.01.2002 was admissible to them during the relevant months from April, 2001 to December, 2001 when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
