Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (4) TMI 1146

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or without payment of appropriate duty. Otherwise also, the period involved in the present case is prior to the relevant amendment made to CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, by way of insertion of the Rule 3(5B) on written off inputs which came into effect on 11th May 2007. The Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NAVI MUMBAI VERSUS HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. [2011 (6) TMI 662 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS INGERSOLL RAND (INDIA) LTD. [2013 (2) TMI 32 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has categorically held in the cases that the said rules cannot be made applicable retrospectively even though the circular directs for reversal of credit on the written-off go .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f limitation. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and equivalent amount of penalty. Hence, the present appeal. 3. At the outset, the Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that even though during the relevant period, provisions for obsolescence material were made in their books of accounts, it is only to arrive at the correct picture of the value of inventory, and the said provisions were subsequently reversed by passing a journal voucher entry. In support he has submitted an affidavit of one Shri Kirit Desai dated 5th April 2011. Further, he submits that in the impugned order the Learned Commissioner following the Board s Circular No. 101/12/95-CX dated 22nd February 1995 and No. 645/36/2002-CX dated 16th July 20 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... artment as being reflected in the respective balance sheet and, therefore, allegation of suppression of facts and consequently; extended period of limitation cannot be invoked against them. 4. Per contra, Learned Authorised Representative for Revenue submitted that during the visit of the officers of the department to the factory premises, appellant could not identify and show the obsolescence stock of inputs/raw materials as mentioned in their books of accounts. It is his contention that since the appellant has failed to produce any evidence in support of their claim that during the relevant period that obsolete inputs/scrap were cleared on payment of appropriate duty from the factory premises, the confirmation of the demand by the Lear .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gly, credit is reversible. We do not find substance in the said contention of the Revenue inasmuch as, the show cause notice was issued on the basis of balance sheet alleging that the provisions made for obsolescence raw material were written off from the Books of Account, accordingly, by virtue of Board s circular issued in 1995, the appellant is required to reverse the credit. Nowhere it is shown that the written-off materials were cleared from the factory without reversal of credit or without payment of appropriate duty. Even otherwise also, we find that the period involved in the present case is prior to the relevant amendment made to CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, by way of insertion of the Rule 3(5B) on written off inputs which came into .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (5B) and (5C) in Rule 3. 6. In Commissioner of Central Excise v. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited, 2008 (226) E.L.T. 339 a Division Bench of this Court had noted that the Tribunal in a long line of judgments had taken the view that where the goods have been shown as written off goods, the benefit is available. In the present case, as already noted earlier, the period to which the dispute relates is prior to the insertion of sub-rules (5B) and (5C) in Rule 3. The Tribunal held that the case of the assessee was covered by several of its judgments which have been adverted to in para 11 of the judgment. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has not submitted before the Court that any of those judgments have been overruled by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates