TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 856X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit Rules, 2004. Though the appellant has taken a plea that Rule 3 (2) of CCR, 2004 has been provided with the sole intention of law that the goods which have become dutiable after the exemption seized to exist, then naturally to avoid cascading effect of duty suffered on inputs involved on such goods, such benefit of cenvat credit is to be given to the manufacturer and any provision of law putting a limitation thereto shall not be applicable simultaneously to this provision. The appellate authority has rightly denied the availment of cenvat credit to the appellant for such of its stock. The invoices were beyond a period of six months of appellant crossing the threshold limit of SSI exemption - appeal dismissed - decided against appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndings of Order-in-Original. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. I have heard Ms. Rinki Arora, ld. Advocate for the appellant, who has submitted that Rule 3 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 permits the assessee to take cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs lying in stock on the date on which the goods manufactured seized to be exempted goods. Since the appellant was earlier availing an SSI exemption but crossed the threshold limit of ₹ 1.5 Crores in January, 2015, the appellant was very much entitled to obtain the cenvat credit lying in their stock on the said threshold date. It is submitted that adjudicating authority disallowed the cenvat credit of ₹ 4,38,723/ on the ground that Rule 4 (i) of CCR, 2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the said credit has been disallowed as been asked to be recovered in view of Rule 4 (1) of CCR 2004. Thus, the basic defence of appellant is that both the said sub-rules cannot be applied simultaneously and they are entitled for availment of credit in view of Rule 3(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules. The moot controversy, therefore is to be adjudicated is as to whether both the said provisions are to be applied simultaneously or while applying Rule 3 (2) CCR, 2004 Rule 4 (1) thereof has no applicability. For this purpose both the Rules need to be reproduced. Rule 3 (1) of CCR, 2004 reads as follows:- Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-rule (1), the manufacturer or producer of final products shall be allowed to take CENVAT Credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ular condition for the availment of that credit. If a condition under rule 4 specifically disallows cenvat credit on a particular goods or service, the cenvat credit cannot be allowed under rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 8. Though the appellant has taken a plea that Rule 3 (2) of CCR, 2004 has been provided with the sole intention of law that the goods which have become dutiable after the exemption seized to exist, then naturally to avoid cascading effect of duty suffered on inputs involved on such goods, such benefit of cenvat credit is to be given to the manufacturer and any provision of law putting a limitation thereto shall not be applicable simultaneously to this provision. But, I am not convinced with the argument put-for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n taxing statues be interpreted on any presumptions or assumptions. The Court must look squarely at the words of the statute and interpret them. It must interpret a taxing statute in the light of what is clearly expressed; it cannot imply anything which is not expressed; it cannot import provisions in the statute so as to supply any assumed deficiency A statute is an edict of the Legislature and in construing a statute, it is necessary, to seek the intention of its maker. A statute has to be construed according to the intent of them that make it and the duty of the Court is to act upon the true intention of the Legislature. If a statutory provision is open to more than one interpretation the Court has to choose that interpretation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sive approaches. In other words the legislative intention i.e., the true or legal meaning of an enactment is derived by considering the meaning of the words used in the enactment in the light of any discernible purpose or object which comprehends the mischief and its remedy to which the enactment is directed It was also held that the well settled principle is that when the words in a statute are clear, plain and unambiguous and only one meaning can be inferred, the Courts are bound to give effect to the said meaning irrespective of consequences. If the words in the statute are plain and unambiguous, it becomes necessary to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words used declare the intention of the Legislature. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
