TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e date of exemption vested in assessee. The respondent could not be divested of that credit as there was no statutory provision to do so. The right to avail credit is indefeasible and there cannot be stated to be any co-relation between the raw material and the final product; that is say, it is not as if the credit could be taken only on final product that was manufactured due to the particular raw material to which the credit was related. It is nobody's case that credit of duty on inputs was taken by the respondent illegally or irregularly. The subsequent exemption of final products manufactured by the respondent from excise duty did not make the respondent assessee liable to reverse the cenvat credit availed as the same was given t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... glazed ceramic vitrified porcelain tiles and is having two separate registration certificates from the Central Excise Department for their manufacture, had been paying duty @16% ad valorem after availing the abatement of 45% under Notification No.13/2002-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2002 and had also availed cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods used in manufacture of its final products under Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 (for short 'Rules, 2002'). On scrutiny of its record, the department found that w.e.f. 07.08.2003, the respondent had also started availing benefit of amended notifications dated 14.05.2003 and 29.07.2003 and had started paying duty @8% ad valorem without availing the facility of cenvat credit on the inputs. It had, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessed. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which was allowed vide order dated 12.08.2015. 5. Dissatisfied, the appellant-revenue has preferred the instant appeal mainly on the ground that once the respondent-Company had availed exemption as granted vide notifications dated 01.03.2002, 14.05.2003 and 29.07.2003 respectively, then it was required to follow the conditions prescribed thereunder, in letter and spirit. It was required to pay an amount equivalent to cenvat credit taken on the inputs lying in stock or in process or inputs contained in the final products on 07.08.2003 before opting for payment of concessional rate of duty @8% ad valorem under notification dated 29.07.2003 and without p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l as the penalty of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each imposed on Sh. R.K. Lakhotia, General Manager (Finance) and on Sh. K.Shankaranlyer, Senior Manager (Excise) of the party under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002? 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue argued that the Tribunal had committed an error in setting aside the orders passed by the assessing authority and by exempting the respondent from payment of interest and penalty since as per Rule 6 of the Rules, 2002, the respondent was not entitled to avail the benefit of cenvat credit without complying with the conditions contained in amended notifications and Rules, 2002. Therefore, he urged that the impugned order was liable to be set aside. 8. Per co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Excise, Pune v. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd., 1999 (112) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.), wherein, the manufacturer had obtained credit for excise duty paid on raw material to be used by him in the production of an excisable product. Immediately thereafter it had made the requisite declaration and had obtained acknowledgement thereof. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that once the credit had been validly taken, then the manufacturer was entitled to use the same at any time thereafter. It was observed that there was no provision in the rules which provided for reversal of credit by the authorities except where it had been illegally or irregularly taken; Tractor and Farm Equipment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai-II, 2015 (320) E.L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry provision to do so. The right to avail credit is indefeasible and there cannot be stated to be any co-relation between the raw material and the final product; that is say, it is not as if the credit could be taken only on final product that was manufactured due to the particular raw material to which the credit was related. It is nobody's case that credit of duty on inputs was taken by the respondent illegally or irregularly. As such, in our opinion, the subsequent exemption of final products manufactured by the respondent from excise duty did not make the respondent assessee liable to reverse the cenvat credit availed as the same was given to it on the date when the final product was not exempted. 10. In view of the discussion as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
