2008 (1) TMI 726

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Facts of the case are that M/s. White House Cotton Industries Ltd., Kancheepuram District, (WHCIL) manufacturers of cotton yarn had debited an amount of Rs. 1,44,800/- in their Cenvat account during September, 2002 towards duty due on certain capital goods t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on. "There appears to be no provisions in Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 or in Central Excise Rules, 2000, to take back the credit of Rs. 1,44,800/- which was already debited in Cenvat account by the assessee and for re-writing the Cenvat account. Further, the Central Excise Rules, 2002 has no provisions for filing revised ER-I return. Hence it appears that the assessee of Central Excise Rules, 2002....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appeal. 3. In the grounds of appeal and during hearing, Revenue has argued that not quoting precise provisions in the show cause notice did not involve failure of natural justice as the respondents were put on notice about their liability. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the respondents were liable to pay Rs. 1,44,800/- in terms of Rule 57-S(1)(ii) current during the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat it was settled law that on removal of capital goods at the material time, the assessee was required to reverse only the credit availed at the time of the receipt of the capital goods. This amount i.e. Rs. 1,19,403/- had already been reversed by them. Therefore, he prayed that the appeal filed by the Revenue may be dismissed. 6. I have carefully studied the case records and the rival su....