TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 1049
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Advocate) appearing for the appellant and through written submissions argued that appellants are the manufacturer of "Gutka" classifiable under Chapter 24 of the schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. That officers of Central Excise, Guwahati during a visit on 16/3/2006 observed that appellant is taking CENVAT credit of National calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) paid on panmasala which was received from other units as input on which NCCD was paid. That it is the case of the Revenue that appellant is not eligible to NCCD paid on inputs as appellant is availing the benefit of area based exemption under Notification No. 32/1999-CE or 33/1999-CE both dated 8/7/99 and that CENVAT Credit under Rule 10 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2001/2002, as wel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unded under an area based exemption notification:- (i) CCE, Jallandhar Vs. Kay Kay Industries [[2013 (295) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.) (II) CCE, Chennai-I Vs. CEGAT, Chennai [2006 (202) ELT 753 (Mad.)] 2.2 That as per case law CCE, Mumbai Vs. Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd. [2014 (307) ELT 805 (Tri-Mumbai)] if there is a conflict between the provisions of the Rules & the provisions of a notification then the provision of Notification will prevail and this it is a settled proposition that law cannot be interpreted in such a way to defeat its object. 2.3 That demand is partly time barred as extended period of five years cannot be invoked in the present proceedings. It was his case that statutory returns were regularly filed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edit that Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit will prevail over Rules 10 or Rule 12 of the CENVAT Credit Rules applicable. (v) Ld. Spl. Counsel relied upon the case law of Shree Rama Multi-Tech Ltd. Vs. CC & Cus [ 2016 (331) ELT 348 (Guj)] to argue that there is no room for ascertaining the intendment of the legislature when the provision of law are clear and unambiguous. (vi) That Rule 10 & Rule 12 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2001/2002 CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 are special provisions, making CENVAT Credit admissible made in notifications where full exemption of PLA paid duty is granted, by making specific mention in these Rules. (vii) That the word 'Notwithstanding' used in the opening paragraph of Rule 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Section 5A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A conjoint reading of these area based exemptions, providing complete exemption from duty paid through PLA and the provisions contained in Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules will give an impression/doubt that CENVAT Credit on duty paid on inputs under these exemption notifications may not be admissible. Therefore, the argument of the appellant that CENVAT credit of NCCD is admissible as per Rule 3 (1) (v) of CENVAT Credit Rules is not absolute and cannot be appreciated. Rule 3 (1) (v) cannot be read in isolation when other Rules like Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules are also existing in the scheme of taking CENVAT credit. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit under Rule 3 of the CENVAT credit is also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [ GSR 765 ( E ) dated the 14th November, 2002] or notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 56/2003-Central Excise, dated the 25th June, 2003 [G.S.R. 513 ( E ), dated the 25th June, 2003] or 71/2003-Central Excise, dated the 9th September, 2003 [ G.S.R. 717 ( E ), dated the 9th September, 2003, the CENVAT credit on such inputs or capital goods shall be admissible as if no portion of the duty paid on such inputs or capital goods was exempted under any of the said notifications." 4.2 A plain reading of the above Rules reveal that area based exemptions 32/99-CE & 33/99-CE, both dated 8/7/1999, are mentioned alongwith other area based exemptions. Some of the exemption notifications specif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....admissibility of CENVAT credit under special provisions contained in Rule 10 and Rule 12 of CCR 01/02 and CCR 04 respectively. In view of the above on merit, CENVAT credit of NCCD, refunded under area based exemption No. 27/2000-CE, is not admissible to the appellant. 6. However, the contention raised by the appellant, that NCCD duty credit utilized by debiting the CENVAT Credit account, cannot be denied for units not availing area based exemption, is acceptable as these amounts are not hit by the CENVAT Credit Rules. The amount of such NCCD Credit rejected, if any is required to be qualified by the Adjudicating authority and the same will be admissible to the appellant. 7. So far as the invocation of extended period under Rule 14 of ....