2017 (7) TMI 167

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ri, Zaheerabad. The case of the department is that the total credit was distributed to all the registered units whereas the Haridwar unit is exempted from payment of excise duty. Therefore, the credit attributed to the Haridwar unit is not admissible. Accordingly, the demand was raised under Rule 15 from the appellant, who is input service distributor. 2. Shri L. Badrinarayan, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant is only an input service distributor in the terms of Rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules. The appellant is neither availing the cenvat credit nor discharging any excise duty. Therefore, the recovery of wrong availment of credit if any cannot be made against the appellant. He submits that the issu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d wrongly or has been erroneously refunded, the same shall be recovered along with interest from the manufacturer or the provider of output service, as the case may be, and the provisions of sections 11A and 11AA of the Excise Act or sections 73 and 75 of the Finance Act, 1994, as the case may be, shall apply mutatis mutandis for effecting such recoveries." On a plain reading of the above rule, it is seen that the recovery of cenvat credit can only be made when the cenvat credit has been taken or utilised wrongly. 6. In the present case, the input service distributors have not taken any credit whereas they have already distributed the input service credit. The credit was taken by various manufacturing units. Therefore, rule 14 can be ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....jurisdictional Commissionerates, without asking the CBEC to restate the provision in the Cenvat Credit Rules. 4. The Chief Commissioners have also pointed out varying case law on the subject. A detailed examination of these case laws has revealed that each one of them can be distinguished effectively and their inapplicability could also have been pointed out. If this had been done by the Chief Commissioners Mumbai, then the legal position regarding Rule 14 and the case law could have been pointed out to the Honourable Tribunal without making a reference to the Board. 5. Since the Chief Commissioners Mumbai I and Mumbai II have often indicated in various meetings that there was apparently a large revenue involvement on this issue, they....