2017 (11) TMI 1478

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. During the period under dispute, the appellant availed cenvat credit on goods procured from M/s Ritzy Polymers whose factory was situated in the State of J&K and who were availing the benefit of area based exemption under Notification No.56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002. Even before expiry of the exemption period of 10 years from the date of commencement of production (i.e. upto 05.09.2014 ), M/s Ritzy Polymers undertook substantial expansion and claimed the benefit of new area based exemption Notification No.1/2010-CE dated 06.02.2010 . The department proceeded to deny the Cenvat credit availed by the appellant amounting to Rs. 2,19,69,001/- on goods procured from M/s Ritzy Polymers which were cleared av....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mission of Notification No.1/2010, hence, such amendment is to be considered as having retrospective applicability, since it is in the nature of removing an omission. iii) With reference to the denial of Cenvat credit of Rs. 4,18,839/- for shortage of stock taking, he submitted that the amount has already been paid as soon as it was pointed-out and hence the penalty imposed may kindly be set-aside. 4. The ld DR justified the impugned order. He submitted that in the absence of any express provisions contained in the notification, it cannot be presumed that the amendment to Rule 12 is having retrospective effect. In this regard, he relied on the case laws of M/s Spice Telecom-2006(203) ELT 538 (SC). 5. We have heard both sides and perused....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d exemption by M/s Ritzy Polymers, we note the availment under Notification No.1/2010 is in dispute which is yet to be settled. However, the alternate plea that they would have been entitled to Notification No.56/2002 upto 05.09.2014 appears to have been considered and permitted by the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities. If that is so, then there will be no justification to deny the Cenvat credit availed by the appellant on goods received from M/s Ritzy Polymers. Hence, we consider it necessary to set-aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for passing de novo orders after verifying whether M/s Ritzy Polymers have been permitted to avail benefit of Notification no. 56/2002 during the period under ....