9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 23.12.2014. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one of the two appellants is a manufacturing unit and the other appellant is Managing Director of the said unit. The manufacturing unit is engaged in manufacture of polymer emulsions falling under Chapter 39, used in paint, textiles and adhesive industry. Vinyl acetate monomer is one of the main raw material used for manufacture of final product. Appellant imported vinyl acetate monomer and stored the same in Customs Bonded Warehouse at Mahul Village, Chembur, Mumbai. Appellant cleared vinyl acetate monomer to their customers directly from the said Customs Bonded Warehouse, but maintained the records in such a manner that the record indicated that the said inputs were received in the facto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal value of goods traded during the said period. There was proposal for imposing penalty on the other appellant. Both the appellants contested the said show cause notice. The contention of the appellant was that immediately after taking the cenvat credit, the same cenvat credit was reversed and, therefore, the appellant is not liable for any recovery of cenvat credit under Rule 14 as proposed in the show cause notice. Appellant also contended that they have chosen the option of reversing the proportionate credit attributable to trading activity and, therefore, they are not liable to pay the amount demanded in the show cause notice. The said show cause notice was adjudicated through the impugned orderin- original. Learned original authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the very same day by preparing excise invoice on customer and this is how credit taken was reversed on the same day. In respect of the other demand, learned counsel has submitted that the appellant had reversed proportionate amount of credit considering trading as exempt service and the only reason why their contention was not accepted by the original authority is that the appellant has not filed the declaration under Rule 6(3A) of the said Rules. He has submitted that there are large number of decisions of this Tribunal wherein it has been held that the appellant can reverse proportionate credit as provided in Rule 6(3)(ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He has relied on the following decisions:- a) Mercedes Benz India (P) Ltd. reported a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties can be allowed to be taken on receipt of inputs into the factory. If the inputs are received in the factory, then such inputs can be cleared as such on debit of cenvat credit. In the present case, inputs were not received in the factory and credit was availed and utilized for clearance of inputs as such which never reached the factory. The appellant has contended that they have reversed the cenvat credit whereas the fact is that the cenvat credit was utilized by debiting the same through the invoices issued by the appellant for sale of inputs directly from the Customs Bonded Warehouse. We have also gone through the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ajinkya Enterprises (supra). In the said case, cenvat credit was availed and afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
