9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, appeared for the assessee and Shri. M. Jagan Babu, Ld. Departmental Representative, appeared for the Revenue. 3. The Show Cause Notice came to be issued demanding the reversal of CENVAT Credit since the appellant had moved out of CENVAT scheme and opted for exemption under Notification No. 08/2003-C.E. dated 01.03.2003. 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. Ld. A.R. appearing for the Revenue supported the findings of the lower authorities. 7. Heard both sides, perused the documents placed on record and have also gone through the decisions relied on and referred to during the course of arguments. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit is, therefore, indefeasible. It should also be noted that there is no co-relation of the raw material and the final product; that is to say, it is not as if credit can be taken only on a final product 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eived on and after the said date, no credit can be taken. This would be the correct method of understanding of the position of law." 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 e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
