2018 (4) TMI 536

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s falling under Chapter 87 of the First Schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 and are availing cenvat credit facility under Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. During CAG's Audit it was noticed that the appellant had availed 100% credit on capital goods during FY 2010-11 instead of 50% cenvat credit on capital goods available during one Financial year and remaining 50% of the credit was in the subsequent years. Accordingly a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for recovery of excess cenvat credit availed to the tune of Rs. 7,67,873/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Three only) in contravention of Rule 4(2) (a) of CCR 2004/ invoking the extended period provisions. The show-cause notice alleged sup....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pital goods on reversal of credit and availment of such reversed credit by recipient would apply and not the provisions of Rule 4(2). Learned counsel  further submitted that under Rule 3(6) read with Rule 3(5A), the appellant  was required to reverse lesser amount of duty and also there is no restriction that such credit shall be availed in installments as required under Rule Learned counsel also referred to the invoice which is placed on record which establishes the fact that the goods on which credit has been  availed are used capital goods moved from one location to another location. He further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not applied Rule 10 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 on transfer of credit on shifting of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the basis of excise invoices and has taken credit at their new factory which is in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: a) CCE, Chennai VSE Smithkline Beecham Consumer Health Care Ltd. 2007 (209) EL, T. 96-Chennai) b) Kevin Enterprises Pvt Ltd. Vs. CCE, Vododara 2007 (219) ELT 181 (Tric -Mumbai) 2.2. He further submitted that the appellant has taken the credit but had not utilized the credit which is clearly evidenced from ER-I return enclosed with the appeal and therefore no interest would be liable to be paid as held by the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Bi// Forge Ltd reported in 2012(26) S.T.R. 204 (Kan). He also submitt....