TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (11) TMI 548
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....drawback could be claimed from Customs. However, on finding that the certificate was not being issued by the Superintendent, the appellant dropped the idea of exporting raw material imported by them and took back and reversed the Cenvat credit by making a credit entry on 3-3-2007. On the basis of an audit objection that the action taken by the appellant is wrong and appellant should have filed refund claim and should not have taken suo motu credit, proceedings were initiated which culminated into confirmation of demand for the Cenvat credit taken again and imposition of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the decision of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n question was no longer being used by the appellants for manufacture of their finished goods and therefore, in any case, the Cenvat credit available in respect of that input in the books could not have been used by the appellants and on this ground also the re-credit is wrong. 4. I find that the Commissioner, after taking note of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of BDH Industries and reproducing Para 12 of the decision, has observed that "in the present case also, the amount was initially debited as duty on the proposed clearance of raw material in question. Therefore, following the ratio of Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of BDH Industries, the appellants could not have taken suo motu credit and therefore t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reversal cannot be considered as reversal for payment of duty at all, as submitted by the learned counsel. Further, the observation of the Commissioner that the input seems to be of no use to the appellant and therefore, denial of Cenvat credit is appropriate, is also not supported by statute. As already observed, the question of reversal would arise only when inputs are destroyed or written off or removed from the factory. During the hearing, learned counsel submitted that subsequent to the proceedings, appellants have cleared more than 3700 Kgs. of the raw material by reversing the Cenvat credit taken by them. This would again support the statutory requirement that the duty is only to be paid when the goods are removed. Further, the obse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the decision of the Larger Bench decision. Further, the learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ultra Tech Cement Limited - 2010 (261) E.L.T. 696 (Tri. - Bang.). In the case of Ultra Tech Cement Limited also the Cenvat credit taken on capital goods such as angles, channels, etc., was reversed under protest and subsequently, the appellants took the credit suo motu. This was objected to and proceedings were initiated. The Tribunal observed that - "facts in the case before the Larger Bench was different from the facts in the issue before us. The credit of the amounts deposited on issuance of show cause notice has been taken by the appellant after conclusion of the proceedings in their favour by OIO dated 2....