9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds which they received. During the relevant period Rule 3(5B) of the CCR, 2004 required that "if the value of any, input or capital goods before being put to use, on which CENVAT credit has been taken is written off fully or partially has been made in the books of account, then the manufacturer or service provider as the case may be, shall pay an amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit taken in the respect of said inputs or capital goods." It further provided that if the inputs or capital goods were subsequently used in the manufacture of final products or the provision of taxable services, the manufacturer or the output service provider can take credit of the amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit paid. The appellant had clearly written off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being put to use, On which Cenvat credit has been taken is written off fully or partially where any provision to write off fully or partially has been made in the books of account, then the manufacturer or service provider as the case may be, shall pay an amount equivalent to the Cenvat credit taken in the respect of said inputs or capital goods. Provided that if the said input or capital goods is subsequently used in the manufacture of final products or the provision of taxable services, the manufacturer output service provider, as the case may be, shall be entitled to take the credit of the amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit paid earlier subject to the other provisions of the rules." Therefore, in view of the discussion supra I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir not having proved the usage of the impugned goods further in the manufacture, I hold that the demand confirmed vide para 19(i) of the impugned order is upheld along with the attendant interest confirmed vide para 19(ii) of the impugned order. 14. The appellant has also assailed the notice in view of that there is no wilful suppression was proved and they regularly filing the ERI/ER4 return where the ER 4 shows the details of obsolete stock and write off the goods of their company. The figures mentioned in the ER 4 shows the total amounts of all the units of the HSIL Ltd not in respect of the appellant. The issue of making provisions of obsolete stock of inputs/capital goods in their Trial balance 2015-2016 came to the knowledge of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the fact that they had written off the inputs/capital goods. This fact was revealed only when the audit was conducted. Therefore, the demand was correctly confirmed and was also upheld by the First Appellate Authority. It is clear from the Rule 3(5B) that debit has to be made when they write off the goods as obsolete. If the goods on which the credit has been so debited get subsequently used at a later stage, they can take credit. Merely because the appellant has used some of the obsolete items after writing off, they cannot escape from Rule 3(5B). This amounts to undue financial accommodation. He draws the attention of the Bench to the Board Circular No. 645/36/2002-CX dated 16.07.2012 and CBEC Circular No. 101/12/95- CX dated 22.02.199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
