TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eived on or after 01.03.2015. In the absence of any ambiguity in the language used in the said rule, the assessee’s contention that the legislation intent is required to be looked into, cannot be appreciated. It is well settled law that quasi-judicial authorities cannot step in the shoes of the legislature and cannot fill the lacuna, if any. Benefit cannot be extended - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Ex. Appeal No. 51021 of 2018-SM - A/52093/2018-SM[BR] - Dated:- 28-5-2018 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Sh. R. S. Sharma Sh. Mukesh Kapoor, Advocates for the appellant Sh.P. Juneja, AR for the Respondent Per: Archana Wadhwa: The appellant are engaged in the manufacture of excisable go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of duty of excise leviable under the First Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act. In terms of the said Notification, an assessee was entitled to cross use the credit of cess for payment of duty of excise on their final product. However, such utilisation was only in respect of the inputs or capital goods received in the factory of the assessee on or after 01.03.2015. 4. The appellant, however, utilised the earlier accumulated credit to the tune of ₹ 1,27,818/- for payment of duty of basic excise, during the month of May, 2015 and December, 2015. Inasmuch as such utilisation was not permissible for the period prior to 01.03.2015, Revenue initiated proceedings against the appellant by way of issuance of a show cause notice dated 06.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment s conscious policy decision to withdraw the Education Cess and Secondary Higher Education Cess. It is a policy decision to not allow utilisation of accumulated credit of education cess and secondary and higher education cess after these Cesses have been phased out. As these Cesses have been phased out and no new liability to pay such Cess arises, no vested right can be said to exist in relation to the accumulated credit of the past. The rule and notifications as they exist need to be followed and do not need any amendment . Thus, the instant dispute has been resolved in view of this clarification. There is no scope of any other interpretation of statutory provisions in the light of this clarification. The judgments cited by the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit in case of manufactured goods falling under sub-heading 8540.12, though the proviso had provided for credit of duty in respect of inputs lying in stock or contained in finished goods lying in stocks. It was held that the said scheme of credit of input tax, in view of amended provision, could not be made applicable to goods which had already come into existence and under which the assessee had claimed credit facility. As noticed above, in the present case, credit of EC and SHE could be only allowed against EC and SHE and could not be cross-utilised against the excise duty or service tax. In fact, what the petitioners seek is an amendment of the scheme to allow them to take cross utilisation of the unutilised EC and SHE upon the two cess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce inasmuch as the ratio of law remains the same. Similarly, the use of the expression inserted and substituted will also have no bearing inasmuch as the end result of the amendments in Rule 3(7) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rule is the same, whether it has come by way of institution or substitution. Otherwise also I find that there is no ambiguity in the provisions of law, which are very clear. The amended provision of Rule 3(7)(b) have clearly spelt that the benefit of cross utilisation of cess and higher cess can be permitted only in respect of inputs received on or after 01.03.2015. In the absence of any ambiguity in the language used in the said rule, the assessee s contention that the legislation intent is required to be looked into, can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
