Appellant ordered to pay Rs. 3 lakhs for Cenvat Credit dispute. Pre-deposit waived upon compliance. The Tribunal directed the appellant, engaged in manufacturing sponge iron, to deposit Rs. 3 lakhs within four weeks based on a retrospective amendment to ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Appellant ordered to pay Rs. 3 lakhs for Cenvat Credit dispute. Pre-deposit waived upon compliance.
The Tribunal directed the appellant, engaged in manufacturing sponge iron, to deposit Rs. 3 lakhs within four weeks based on a retrospective amendment to Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001. Upon compliance, the pre-deposit requirement for the remaining amount, interest, and penalty was waived, with recovery stayed pending the appeal's disposal. The dispute revolved around the appellant's availing of Cenvat Credit for services related to iron ore lumps conversion, with the department arguing that iron ore fines were exempted goods.
Issues: Application for waiver from pre-deposit under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001.
In this case, the appellant, engaged in manufacturing sponge iron, applied for waiver from the pre-deposit requirement of Rs. 52,65,993/- confirmed against them under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001. The dispute arose from the appellant availing Cenvat Credit for common services of GTA and clearing & forwarding agent services used in the receipt of iron ore lumps, which were crushed to generate iron ore fines sold by the appellant. The main contention was whether the provisions of Rule 6(3) were applicable, as the appellant argued that no manufacturing was involved in converting iron ore lumps to fines, and iron ore fines were not exempted goods. The appellant also challenged the invocation of the extended period under proviso to Section 11A(C) of Central Excise Act, 1944, claiming the demand was time-barred. The department contended that iron ore fines fell under exempted goods, citing a specific chapter in the Central Excise Tariff and an exemption notification. The department also justified the longer limitation period based on the appellant's ER-1 returns not mentioning the clearance of iron ore fines. The Tribunal, after considering both arguments, directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 3 lakhs within four weeks, based on a retrospective amendment to Rule 6(3) allowing for a proportionate credit reversal. Upon compliance, the pre-deposit requirement for the remaining amount, interest, and penalty was waived, with recovery stayed pending the appeal's disposal.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
