TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (4) TMI 583
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... credit of Rs. 3.39 crores. The adjudicating authority allowed credit of Rs. 82.00 laths and disallowed credit of Rs. 2.57 crores. Out of the credit disallowed by the adjudicating authority, the appellants are challenging the denial of following credits: (1) Credit of Rs. 41,47,609 which was disallowed on the ground that the same has been availed without any invoice or credit has been availed on the copy of invoice which is not duplicate copy of in voice. (ii) The appellants are also challenging the denial of credit of its. 61,22,262.00 which was denied on the ground that credit was availed on the strength of certificate issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise which is not valid duty paying document. (iii) The appellant also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt period with the RT-12 Returns, there is no requirement of filing the invoices for defacement. The contention is that as the original copies are in possession of the appellant which can be produced for verification therefore the denial is not sustainable. The applicant submitted that in case the matter is remanded, the appellant will produce the in voices. 5. In respect of denial of credit of Rs. 61,22,262.00 the contention is that the inputs were received under the cover of invoices and the credit was availed and subsequently the manufacturer of inputs paid the differential duty. A certificate has been issued by the Supdt. of Central Excise referring payment of differential duty and the appellant taken credit of the differential duty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Asia Brown Boveri Ltd. (supra) for the period August, 2000 to February, 2001 held that reversal of credit taken in respect of the inputs is sufficient in case the inputs are cleared as such. The contention is that the issue before the Tribunal was in respect of Provision of 57AB(b) of the Central Excise Rules which are subject matter of the present appeal. Therefore as the appellant had already reversed the credit taken on the inputs which were cleared as such, hence the demand is not sustainable. 7. Ld. Jt. CDR appeared on behalf of Revenue submitted that out of the total denial of credit of Rs. 2.57 crores, the appellants are only contesting an amount of Rs. 2,14,05,637.00. The contention is that the adju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch goods if such goods have been manufactured in the said factory therefore the demand is rightly mad?. The contention is that in the case of Southern Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (supra) the dispute was in respect of the capital goods which were returned to the manufacturer in terms of Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules therefore the ratio is not applicable on the facts of the present case. 8. In respect of denial of credit of Rs. 41,47,609.00, we find that appellant submitted 54 invoices under cover of a letter dated 16-11-2000 to the jurisdictional superintendent. In the adjudication order, the credit was denied on the ground that appellant had not produced the copy of the letter. We find that in the show cause notice reference of the lett....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pect of the demand of Rs. 1,11,35,767.00/-, the Revenue is re lying upon the Rule 57A8 (b) of Central Excise Rules which provides as under: "The CENVAT credit may be utilized for payment of any duty of excise on any final product manufactured by the manufacturer or for payment of duty on inputs or capital good themselves if such inputs are removed as such or after being partially processed, or such capital goods are removed as such. Explanation :- When inputs or capital goods are removed from the factory, the manufacturer of the final products shall pay the appropriate duty of excise leviable thereon as if such inputs or capital goods have been manufactured in the said factory, and such removal shall be made under the cover of an invo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot in Rule 57AB(b). The proviso was only to the extent that where the inputs are removed from factory for home consumption on payment of excise duty, such duty will not be less than the amount credit. In the Rule 57AB (b) which is under consideration, even this condition is not there. Therefore we find that the ratio of the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. American Auto Services and CCE v. ABB (supra) are applicable on the facts of the present case hence the reversal of credit availed at the time of receipt of inputs is sufficient at the time of clearance of inputs as such from the factory of production hence the demand is not sustainable and set aside and appeal in this regard is allowed. 12. In respect of imposition o....