2005 (11) TMI 329

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....w cause notice was issued to them on 24-10-2003 alleging that they had failed to pay an amount equivalent to the Cenvat credit attributable to the inputs sent to job workers for further processing and not received back in their factory within 180 days of their being sent to the respective job workers. It was also alleged that they had utilized the Cenvat credit, equivalent to the amount which ought to be reversed as per erstwhile Rule 57A(5) of the Central Excise (Second Amendment) Rules, 2000 and Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 and Central Credit Rules, 2002 respectively for reasons cited above, for payment of duty of excise in terms of erstwhile Rule 57AB(b) of the Central Excise (Second Amendment) Rules, 2000, Rule 3(3) of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stipulated period or that extended. This Rule deals with the conditions for allowing Cenvat credit and is not covering penal actions for violation of any of the conditions. The penal provisions are given in Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and the same has been rightly in invoked. In the light of above facts, I do not find any reason to interfere with the Order-in-Original." Being aggrieved with the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed before the Tribunal. 4. The main contention of the appellants is that under Rule 4(5)(a), no time limit has been prescribed for reversing the credit, although time limit has been prescribed (180 days) for receipt of the inputs or the capital goods from the job wo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ain loss due to the wrong procedure adopted by the appellants. Hence, Rules 12 and 13 which are valid provisions under the law, have been correctly invoked in the show cause notice. 6. I have examined the case record and heard both sides for a long time. I am of the view that the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) are self contained inasmuch as the crucial time frame of 180 days mentioned therein are not only applicable for receipt of the goods back from the job worker but also for making necessary reversal of the credit taken by the appellants. I do not think that this rule is in any way deficient as the appellants tried to make out here. The provisions of Rules 12 and 13 have been rightly invoked by the department as they cover anything "....