TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1875X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has availed the credit of duty paid by them after the amendment and thus the law as it existed at the time when they converted the duty paid by them into cenvat credit would be the law applicable to the said credit. Since at the time of availing cenvat credit, sub-rule (d) of Rule 7 and Explanation 3 of the said rule was in existence at the time of availing credit, UniDeritend Ltd. was required to follow the same and avail the credit only in terms of Rule 7(d) read with Explanation 3. In these circumstances, the demand of reversal of credit is upheld. Penalty - HELD THAT:- The plain language of the Rule is very clear and leaves no scope for doubt. Under these circumstances, imposition of penalty is justifiable. Appeal of UniDeriten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, they could have distributed the credit as per the said rules as it existed prior to the said amendment. 2.1 He further argued that it was the revenue neutral situation and there could not have been any intention to evade duty. He argued that the entire credit was available to three units of the appellant and thus by availing credit in just one unit, the appellant could not have gained anything. 2.2 He took me through the invoices on which the said credit has been availed. The invoices produced by him showed that the same has been raised in the year 2011 and early 2012. However, there was no verification of the date of payment for the said services. Learned counsel further argued that it was a quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese circumstances, UniDeritend Ltd. should have followed the law and not given their own interpretation to the same. 4. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that the primary argument of UniDeritend Ltd. is that the credit was available to them prior to amendment in Rule 7(d) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and therefore they cannot be asked to follow the said Rule 7(d). In this regard, they have relied on Section 38A of the Central Excise Act and the decision of the Apex Court in Eicher Motors Ltd. (supra). 5. Sub-rule (d) and Explanation 3 to the said sub-rule was inserted in Cenvat Credit Rules on 1.4.2014. The said sub-rule reads as under:- 7. Manner of distribution of credit by input service distributor The i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is misplaced. To convert any duty paid into cenvat credit, it has to be claimed in their account and returns as cenvat credit. In the instant case, while the invoices were raised prior to the amendment, there is no evidence if the payment was made prior to the amendment. Thus if the credit was available prior to the amendment is also a doubtful proposition. In any case UniDeritend Ltd. has availed the credit of duty paid by them after the amendment and thus the law as it existed at the time when they converted the duty paid by them into cenvat credit would be the law applicable to the said credit. Since at the time of availing cenvat credit, sub-rule (d) of Rule 7 and Explanation 3 of the said rule was in existence at the time of availing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
