TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lared the details of Cenvat Credit taken and their utilization in the ST 3 Returns. Therefore, their explanation that this was an inadvertent error on their part, is to be accepted. It is also seen that after the OIO was passed, they have reversed the entire Cenvat Credit. In the present case, the Appellant has reversed the entire Cenvat Credit taken. Therefore, the confirmed demand of Rs.22,13,962/- along with interest is required to be set aside. However, as pointed out by the Learned AR, it is seen that the Appellant has only reversed the Cenvat Credit without paying the relevant interest - the Appellant is required to pay the interest for the period when the Cevat Credit was taken till the time they have reversed the Cenvat Credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the due course, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand with interest and penalty. On appeal, the same was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Being aggrieved, the Appellant is before the Tribunal. 2. The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that taking of Cenvat Credit was inadvertent mistake on their part and after getting proper advise and on receipt of the Order-in-Original, the Appellants have reversed the entire credit of Rs.4,59,107/-. He draws our attention to the entries made by them in their Ledger Account towards such payments made along with the details of Service Tax Challans. 3. The Learned Advocate relies on the following case laws:- (i) Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd Vs. CCE Na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee cannot make a debit entry in the credit account before removal of the exempted final product. If this debit entry is permissible to be made, credit entry for the duties paid on the inputs utilised in manufacture of the final exempted product will stand deleted in the accounts of the assessee. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the assessee has taken credit for the duty paid on the inputs utilised in the manufacture of the final exempted product under Rule 57A. In other words, the claim for exemption of duty on the disputed goods cannot be denied on the plea that the assessee has taken credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in manufacture of these goods. [emphasis supplied] 8. The Hon ble Tribunal in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Court judgment in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wire Private Limited v. C.C.E., Nagpur, 1996 (81) E.L.T.3. 8.2 I have gone through the Hon ble Supreme Court of India s judgment in the above mentioned case, and I find that it has been laid down/held that debit entry in modvat credit account indicates as if no credit was taken on such inputs. This judgment has been followed in a number of Tribunal judgments. The latest has been a case of the Commissionerate of Service Tax itself in the case of CST, Ahmedabad v. M/s. Amola Holdings Private Limited. This judgment was given in order No. A/1148/WZB/AHD/09 dated 1-6-2009. This judgment also stands accepted by the Commissionerate and hence I follow the same and hold that reversal or debit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
