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>Manufacturer cannot withdraw CENVAT credit option to claim N/N. 8/2003-CE exemption during same financial year</h1> <h3>M/s. Veejay Enterprises Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III Commissionerate</h3> M/s. Veejay Enterprises Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III Commissionerate - TMI Issues Involved:1. Availment of CENVAT credit and subsequent exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE.2. Limitation and validity of the second show-cause notice.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Availment of CENVAT Credit and Exemption:The appellant, M/s. Veejay Enterprises, manufactures HDPE/PP woven sacks and had a balance of CENVAT credit at the end of the financial year 2005-2006. They availed CENVAT credit in April 2006 and surrendered their registration certificate on 08.05.2006. During an audit, it was found that the appellant restarted manufacturing and cleared goods without paying duty, which was against the provisions of Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. The authorities confirmed the demands for the period from May 2006 to March 2007.The appellant argued that the payment of duty in April 2006 was a mistake and should not deny them the benefit of the exemption. They cited several cases to support their argument. However, the Tribunal noted that according to clauses 2(i) and (ii) of Notification No. 8/2003-CE, once the option to pay duty is exercised, it cannot be withdrawn for the remaining part of the financial year. Hence, having paid duty in April 2006, the appellant could not avail the exemption for the rest of the year. The Tribunal referenced the case of Cybele Herbal Laboratories (P) Ltd. to support this interpretation.2. Limitation and Validity of the Second Show-Cause Notice:The appellant surrendered their registration on 08.05.2006, and an audit was conducted on 20.03.2007. Based on the audit, a show-cause notice was issued on 04.11.2008, which was adjudicated on 19.08.2009. A second show-cause notice was issued on 22.09.2009 based on the same audit note. The appellant argued that the second notice could not invoke suppression or mis-declaration, as the matter had already been addressed in the first notice.The Tribunal agreed, noting that the second show-cause notice was based on the same audit note as the first and that all relevant facts were available to the authorities at the time of the first notice. Citing the case of Anglo-French Textiles, the Tribunal held that issuing a second notice on the same grounds after the first had been adjudicated was impermissible. Therefore, the second show-cause notice was deemed time-barred and without merit.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, granting consequential relief to the appellant. The appeal was allowed, and the second show-cause notice was declared invalid due to being time-barred and lacking merit.Order Pronounced:(Order pronounced in Open Court on 10.07.2024.)
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
