TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal overturns cenvat demand on glass bottles due to absence of retrospective provision</h1> <h3>M/s Brindavan Bottlers Ltd. Versus CCE, Lucknow</h3> M/s Brindavan Bottlers Ltd. Versus CCE, Lucknow - 2016 (342) E.L.T. 134 (Tri. - Del.) Issues involved:- Appeal against the confirmation of cenvat demand on glass bottles- Interpretation of provisions for reversal of cenvat credit- Applicability of rules at the relevant timeAnalysis:The case involved an appeal against the confirmation of cenvat demand on glass bottles by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Aerated Water, filed a remission application for Central Excise Duty on glass bottles broken during handling. The Assistant Commissioner granted the remission but imposed a condition to reverse the cenvat credit taken on the bottles. The appellant appealed the decision, arguing that at the relevant time, there were no provisions for reversing cenvat credit in such cases. The appellant relied on a judgment to support this claim. On the other hand, the respondent cited a circular to justify the reversal of cenvat credit in case of input destruction before use in manufacturing.The Tribunal considered the period in question, May to June 2005 and March to June 2006, and noted that there were no provisions in the Cenvat Credit Rules at that time mandating the reversal of cenvat credit on destroyed inputs. The provision for such reversal came into effect later, on 07.09.2007. Since this rule was not retrospective, the Tribunal held that there was no requirement to reverse cenvat credit during the relevant period. The Tribunal referenced a judgment by the Allahabad High Court to support this interpretation, stating that the Department cannot insist on credit reversal for destroyed inputs before the introduction of the relevant rule. Consequently, the impugned order confirming the cenvat demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
TaxTMI 