2016 (12) TMI 649

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AT Credit contained in the stock lying in factory on 9.7.2004 i.e. from the date appellant opted for exemption under Notification No. 30/2004 dated 9.7.2004 or otherwise. Appellant was availing the CENVAT Credit facility on the inputs received by him and trying to avail the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004 which mandated that such benefit of the Notification would not be available in respect of the goods of which credit of duty on inputs has been taken under the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. 4. It is the case of the learned Counsel that the appellant had cleared the goods by availing benefit of Notification No. 30/2004 and reversed the CENVAT Credit attributable to the inputs consumed for manufacturing of the final goods to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vant paragraph: - "6.2 Thus, the only issue required to be decided in first remand proceedings was appropriate quantum of credit reversal by the appellants. Adjudicating authority relied upon reports of the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, copies of which were desired by the appellants. The same were not given to the appellants and demands confirmed against the appellants by the adjudicating authority. Vide the Order dated 21-5-2012, in the second remand, this Bench has to direct the adjudicating authority to give copy of the said report of the Assistant Commissioner to the appellants to defend the case. Further, appellants wanted to know the basis on which the shortage in Cenvat credit reversal was worked out by the Departme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8,15,246/- and Rs. 17,65,833/- respectively for Appellant Nos. 1, 2 & 3. These differences in amount calculations only indicate that the methodology adopted by the Revenue in calculating the reversal of Cenvat credit is not authentic. In the absence of any convincing data to the effect that reversal of Cenvat credit done by the appellants is not proper, it has to be held that reversal of Cenvat credit on pro rata basis was correctly done by Appellant Nos. 1, 2 & 3. So far as appellant No. 4 is concerned, already a credit of Rs. 8,33,578/- has been reversed against an amount of Rs. 6,91,464/- required to be reversed on pro rata basis. 7. It is also argued by the appellants that demands raised by invoking extended period is time barr....