2010 (5) TMI 407

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... it uses stainless steel sheets and pipes as raw materials. The exact nature of the controversy is that the petitioner seeks adjustment of the CENVAT credit, which it had reversed on the said raw material, against the duty liability as settled by the Settlement Commission. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to paragraph 9 of the Settlement Commission's order which reads as under :- "9. As regards the claim for Cenvat Credit benefit, the main applicant has claimed that they had reversed the credit for the period Jan., 2005 to Sep. 2005 and thereafter paid 10% f the sale price of their finished goods as per Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules in the remaining three months. Under Rule 6(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....It is observed that the final goods manufactured and cleared by the main applicant were not exempted from whole of the duty under any notification. They had been paying duty on the same final products up to 14-1-2005, where-after, they suddenly departed from the said established practice on their own and started removing the goods without payment of duty. De spite a written assurance in the statement dated 30-1-2006 of Shri Anoop Aggarwal, Senior Manager, Accounts, that no credit on such inputs would be taken, they reneged on it. In the totality of facts and circumstances, it is not possible to allow the main applicant's prayer for reduction of Rs. 31,93,569/- in the duty amount towards CENVAT credit." (underlining added) 2. Particula....