2010 (2) TMI 498

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. - The short point in this appeal is whether the un-utilized Cenvat credit of Rs. 22,97,581/- standing to the account of this appellant as on 1-3-2000 in terms of Notification No. 10/2002 dated 1-3-2002 is to be carried forward to meet its consequence in accordance with law subsequently. Show C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....) which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter went in favour of the assessee. In that case, Revenue had also disputed that unutilized Cenvat credit not permissible to be used in future. His argument is that when an assessee uses Cenvat credit is immaterial when right to use such credit accrues or arises to make use thereof. 3. Learned DR Shri Vijay Kumar opposes submissions ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ord. 5. We are unable to find how a right accrued extinguishes without mandate of law. If a right accrued is deniable subsequently, that shall be only permissible by specific statutory provision without being done by mere construction of the scheme. We have examined the order of adjudication as to unutilised credit of Rs. 22.97 lakhs claimed by Appellant for carry forward for further utilisatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nutilized credit was prohibited to be carried forward. 6. Learned Counsel submits that the inputs were dutiable @ 10% while the output was dutiable @ 8%. By mere common sense one can construe that difference in rate of duty may be possible cause of arise of unutilised credit in absence of any finding to the contrary by the learned Adjudicating Authority as to value addition aspect of the goods ....