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>Appellant's Right to CENVAT Credit Upheld: Proviso Ruled Unconstitutional</h1> <h3>Sri Venkatramana Paper Mills P Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem</h3> Sri Venkatramana Paper Mills P Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem - TMI Issues:- Contravention of proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004- Validity of utilizing credit for payment of defaulted excise duty- Interpretation of relevant legal provisionsAnalysis:The case involved the appellants, engaged in manufacturing newsprint reels and maplitho paper reels, who were alleged to have contravened the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by wrongly utilizing credit for payment of defaulted central excise duty. The department sought recovery under Rule 14 of the Rules, leading to a Show Cause Notice, confirmed demand, interest, and penalty by the original authority and Commissioner (Appeals). The central issue revolved around whether the appellants were liable for the demand, interest, and penalty. The proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 stated the conditions for utilizing CENVAT credit for duty payment. The appellant argued that the credit availed on capital goods was eligible before February 2016, and the delay in availing did not invalidate its use for duty payment. Reference was made to a High Court judgment declaring the proviso unconstitutional, emphasizing the indefeasible nature of CENVAT credit.The appellant's counsel contended that the credit on capital goods, though delayed in availing, was valid for duty payment and highlighted the High Court judgment's declaration of the proviso's invalidity. The judgment cited a series of decisions supporting the manufacturer's right to utilize legally availed CENVAT credit without strict correlation between inputs and final products. The judgment concluded that the demand based on the proviso was unsustainable, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any, as per law. The decision aligned with the High Court's ruling and the principles governing CENVAT credit utilization, emphasizing the manufacturer's right to utilize available credit without undue restrictions.In summary, the judgment addressed the contentious issue of CENVAT credit utilization and the validity of demands based on the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. It underscored the manufacturer's right to utilize available credit without strict temporal restrictions, aligning with legal precedents and the High Court's declaration of the proviso's unconstitutionality. The decision provided clarity on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and upheld the appellant's position, setting aside the demand and penalties imposed by the authorities.
TaxTMI 