TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 999 (8) TMI 920 - SUPREME COURT] and also the decision of the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Chandigarh Vs. M/s. C.N.C. Commercial Ltd. [2007 (10) TMI 203 - HIGH COURT PUNJAB AND HARYANA] has concluded that the petitioner therein having rightly availed the CENVAT Input Credit originally, could not be called upon to reverse the same merely because it was stepping into exemption regime. There was no reversal required, as demanded by the Revenue - The impugned order therefore cannot sustain and is accordingly set aside. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The Revenue has even failed to justify invoking the extended period of limitation since, the Show Cause Notice is issued beyond the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Both the Original Authority as well as the First Appellate Authority have found that the appellant had partially reversed the CENVAT Credit, but not the full/correct amount as per Rule 11 (2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant was not allowed to utilize the same for payment of duty; and that the appellant was required to expunge the credit in respect of entire inputs lying in stock or final products lying. The demand, therefore, came to be confirmed whereby the appellant was held liable to pay amount equal to the CENVAT Credit on the closing stock as on 31.03.2005. Suppression was alleged since, according to the Revenue, the Profit and Loss (P L) Account of the appellant showed a different amount against which the appellant p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 8.1 At the outset, I find that the issue is no more res integra, as submitted by the Ld. Consultant for the appellant, since the very jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Tansi Fabrication Works (supra) after considering the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in M/s. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. (supra) and also the decision of the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Chandigarh Vs. M/s. C.N.C. Commercial Ltd. reported in 2008 (224) E.L.T. 239 (P H) has concluded that the petitioner therein having rightly availed the CENVAT Input Credit originally, could not be called upon to reverse the same merely because it was stepping into exemption regime, in the following words : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduct that is manufactured out of the particular raw material to which the credit is related. The credit may be taken against the excise duty on a final product manufactured on the very day that it becomes available. 9 . This decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court was followed by the Hon ble Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the decision reported in 2008 (224) E.L.T. 239 (P. H.) (Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. C.N.C. Commercial Ltd.). The said case is more or less similar to the facts obtaining on hand. In that case also, the assessee was a small scale unit that was entitled to exemption under the very same notification. 10 . The Hon ble Division Bench of Himacha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. Therefore, this Court has to necessarily sustain the contention of the petitioner s Counsel that the writ petitioner having rightly availed the Cenvat input credit originally, cannot be called upon to reverse the same, merely because it was stepping into exemption regime. 8.2 In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that there was no reversal required, as demanded by the Revenue. The impugned order therefore cannot sustain and is accordingly set aside. 9.1 This apart, I also find that the Revenue has even failed to justify invoking the extended period of limitation since, as noted in the earlier paragraphs, the Show Cause Notice is issued beyond the normal period; the period is 01.04. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
