9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 880X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n steel manufacturing process, which is generated from steam and steam is generated by using coal. 2. Accordingly, the Appellant procures various types of coal domestically and by way of imports. During the underlying period, the Appellant paid the applicable basic customs duty on the imported Steam Coal along with the applicable Countervailing Duty ('CVD') thereon. Such duties were paid at reduced rates as per Sl. No. 122A and 123 of the Notification No. 12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012 ('Customs Notification'), which was duly mentioned on the Bills of Entry at the time of import. 3. The Appellant availed and utilized the CENVAT Credit of the CVD so paid in accordance with the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 ('CCR, 2004'). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact that there is no bar in the availment of such credit. 8. The issue regarding eligibility of CENVAT Credit of such CVD, is no longer res integra. In this regard, reliance is placed on decision of Shyam Steel Industries Ltd. v. CCE & CGST, Bolpur, 2022 (382) E.L.T. 366 (Tri-Kolkata) as affirmed in 2022 (382) E.L.T. 329 (Calcutta High Court) wherein it has been held that it is legally incorrect to deny the benefit of credit to the importer of coal who has paid a reduced rate of CVD in accordance with the Customs Notification. 9. He submits that the Department cannot now take a stand which is completely opposite to its own Circular. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) TMI 978-CESTAT New Delhi), SRF Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2015 (318) E.L.T. 607 (S.C.)], and M/s. Tamil Nadu Newsprint & Papers Limited v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli [2021 (10) TMI 13-CESTAT Chennai). The above decisions rendered by the Tribunal have not been shown to have been reversed or modified by the High Court. 10. In the light of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal rightly granted relief in favour of the respondent assessee and the order does not suffer from any error warranting interference." 14. We also find that Circular No. 41 by 2013 CUS dated 21-10-2013 was issued by CBIC on this issue. This Circular clarifies that the CENVAT Credit can be av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
