2017 (2) TMI 613

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....td., were engaged in the manufacture of Yeast classifiable under Tariff Item No. 21022000 of the schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The goods manufactured by the appellant were exempted from complete duty of Excise through Notification No.3/2006-CE dated 01/03/2006. It appeared to Revenue that Cenvat credit involved on the inputs lying in the stock, on inputs in the finished goods lying in the stock, and credit involved on the inputs in-process in the factory as on 28/02/2006 and Cenvat credit on capital goods in the stock as on 28/02/2006 respectively amounting to Rs. 48,90,461/-, Rs. 3,36,172/-, Rs. 1,95,380/-, Rs. 1,88,2012/- were not admissible to the appellant. It also appeared to Revenue that Cenvat credit of Rs. 2,27,130/- ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ule (1) of Rule 6, the same cannot be reversed or recovered. They have also relied on ruling by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Pune Versus Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. reported at 1999 (112) E.L.T. 353(S.C.) and contended that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the said case has ruled that reversal of credit by Excise Authorities is permissible only when credit is taken illegally or irregularly and contended that in the present case the show cause notice could not establish that the said credit was taken irregularly except for credit of Rs. 2,27,130/-. 4. Heard the ld. D. R. who has supported the impugned Order-in-Original. 5. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that Hon'ble Supreme Court ....