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>Importers can claim CENVAT credit on 2% CVD paid on imported coal under Customs notification 12/2012</h1> <h3>Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Jodhpur Versus M/s. J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd.</h3> Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Jodhpur Versus M/s. J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to credit in respect of CVD paid under notification no.12/2012-Cus on import of coal.2. Applicability of Rule 3(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.3. Distinction between customs notification and central excise notification.Summary:Entitlement to Credit in Respect of CVD Paid:The primary issue in this appeal is whether the respondent is entitled to credit for CVD paid under notification no.12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012 on the import of coal. The Tribunal held that this issue is no longer res integra and has been consistently decided in favor of the assessee, as affirmed by the High Court of Calcutta in Commissioner of CGST & C. EX, Bolpur Commissionerate Vs. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd. - 2022 (382) ELT 329 (Cal).Applicability of Rule 3(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:The respondents, engaged in manufacturing cement and clinkers, were availing Cenvat credit on CVD paid on imported coal as per Rule 3(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The department issued a show cause notice denying this credit and confirming its recovery with interest and penalty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the respondents' appeal, which led to the department filing the present appeal before the Tribunal.Distinction Between Customs Notification and Central Excise Notification:The Tribunal noted that Rule 3(1)(vii) allows credit of additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Hindalco Industries Ltd Vs. GST, Bhopal, which clarified that the restriction on availing credit under notification no.12/2012-CE applies only to indigenously manufactured goods and not to imported goods. The Tribunal also cited other cases, including SRF Limited Vs. CC, Chennai, and decisions of various benches, which supported the respondents' entitlement to credit.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dismissing the department's appeal and allowing the respondents' cross-appeal. The Tribunal emphasized the consistent judicial view that Cenvat credit of CVD paid on imported coal under notification no.12/2012-Cus is admissible, distinguishing it from the central excise notification applicable to domestic goods. The Tribunal reiterated that the conditions under Rule 3(1)(i) do not apply to Rule 3(1)(vii), thus affirming the respondents' position.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
