TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacture of dutiable VSF and exempted Wood Pulp, a part of which was being stock transferred to Sister Unit at Nagda for the manufacture of dutiable VSF. Subsequently, the appellant came to know that the High Courts and the Tribunal in large number of judgments had taken the view that the provisions of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 are not attracted to inputs intended to be used as fuel - after that the Apex Court decision in the matter of COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS M/S. GUJARAT NARMADA FERTILIZERS CO. LTD. [ 2009 (8) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT ] which finally settled the issue and reversed the judgment of the High Court and the Tribunal. It is settled legal position that when there are conflicting judgments and the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ICAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. M.S. Nagaraja, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. M.K. Davindran, Supdt. (AR) ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 26/03/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby the Commissioner has confirmed the demand totally amounting to ₹ 1,47,89,503/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Seven Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Three only) being the inadmissible cenvat credit availed by the appellant in respect of duty paid on furnace oil as demanded in various show-cause notices and also appropriated the entire amount of duty paid by the appellant. The adjudicating authority has also imposed penalty as well as demanded int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were eligible for credit was the subject matter of large number of disputes. The High Courts and the Tribunals consistently held that sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 during the relevant period carved out an exception in respect of inputs intended to be used as fuel and there was no requirement to reverse credit on fuel attributable to exempted goods. He further submitted that this issue was finally decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizer Company Ltd. 2009 (240) E.L.T. 661 (SC) whereby the Hon ble Apex Court reversed the judgment of the High Courts and the Tribunal and held that the legal effect of sub-rule (1) has to be applied to all inputs including fuel inputs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re of dutiable VSF. The High Courts and the Tribunal in a large number of judgments had taken the view that the provision of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 are not attracted to inputs intended to be used as fuel . In view of the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court, the appellant informed the jurisdictional authorities vide their letter dated 28/04/2003 that they intend to take cenvat credit on furnace oil and further vide letter dated 29/08/2003 informed the Department that they had taken credit only partially till 28/02/2003 on furnace oil used as fuel and that they intend to avail the balance credit for the period from 01/04/2000 to 28/02/2003 in the month of September 2003. Further the appellant vide letter dated 16/12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Vs. CESTAT 2016 (331) E.L.T. 391 (All.) c. Gujarat Alkalies Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CCE, Vadodara II 2005 (190) E.L.T. 406 (T-Mum.) 5. On the other hand the learned AR for the Revenue defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellant has violated the provisions of Rule 6(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. He further submitted that it is admitted by the appellant that they have taken back the cenvat credit on their own on 15/12/2003 without following the procedure laid down in the Central Excise Law in terms of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. He further submitted that there is no provision in the Central Excise Law that enables the appellant to take back cenvat credit which was earlier reversed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cenvat credit which was also appropriated in the impugned order. Further we find that the appellants have also deposited ₹ 1,52,39,714/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Two Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Fourteen only) towards interest vide Challan No. 1 dated 19/06/2012 under intimation to the Department which fact has also been accepted by the Department. Further we find that re-taking of the credit by the appellant on furnace oil used as input was not with any malafide intention but was consistent with the prevalent judicial precedent in favour of the assessee. Here it is pertinent to reproduce the observation and the direction of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Narmada Fertilizer Company Ltd . cited sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
