TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in favour of the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/60831/2018 - A/63266/2018-SM[BR] - Dated:- 5-10-2018 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Shri. Vikrant kackaria, Advocate- for the appellant Shri. Harvinder Singh, AR - for the respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand has been confirmed against the appellant under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for clearing inputs as such in terms of Rule 3 (5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. The facts of the case are that during the course of audit, it was found that on the basis of the input output ratio for the earlier period, there is some sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it Rules, 2004 is not applicable to the facts of this case. In that circumstances, the impugned order is to be set aside. 4. He also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Confident Dental Equipment Ltd. reported in 2004 (171) ELT 473 (Tri. Bang.), Pushpaman Forgings reported in 2002 (149) ELT 490 (Tri. Mum.). 5. On the other hand, the ld. AR submits that the Notification No. 3/2013-CE(NT) dated 01.03.2013 has been inserted through explanation in terms of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, therefore, the explanation is not substantial provisions of law. In that circumstances, he relying on the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Sulochana Amma reported in 1995 (77) ELT 785 (SC), the reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee is required to pay an amount equal to the credit availed in respect of the said inputs or capital goods. During the impugned period provisions of Rule 14 were not inserted in the law which came into force w.e.f. 01.03.2013 by way of explanation, therefore, it is to be examined whether provisions of Rule 14 are applicable to the facts of this case or not. Rule 14 is applicable when cenvat credit has been taken or utilized wrongly or has been erroneously refunded to the assessee. Admittedly, in this case at the time of procurement of inputs, the appellant was entitled to avail cenvat credit, therefore, it is not a case that the appellant has taken cenvat credit wrongly. Further, from the facts of case and allegation of made in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
