TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1273
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e exempt from central excise duty vide Notification No. 62/1995-CE, dated 16.03.1995, About 98% of the production is going to the railways under the said notification. The clearances made to the Indian Railways were not on sale basis, but book adjustments used to be made. Remaining 2% was being cleared to private parties on payment of duty. The appellant used to take Cenvat credit both under inputs as well as capital goods scheme. The modvat credit so taken used to be accumulated as majority of their final products were cleared under exemption Notification No. 62/1995-CE. Since, the assessee did not maintain separate records for the inputs used in the manufacture of both exempted and dutiable goods, they were paying/reversing 8% of the amou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at a letter stage that the whole credit taken is wrong unwarrantedly the adjudicating authority has demanded the whole credit for the period from 01.04.200 to 16.06.2001. This has to be requantified. The appellants can be allowed to opt out of the scheme with effect from 31.03.2001 only though letter of opting out was given by them on 16.06.2001 as there is no Modvat transaction during April and May 2001. The assessee while opting out of the scheme has to observe certain formalities. There are: 1. Credit available on inputs available in stock as on 31.03.2001 has to be determined by the appellants and paid back. 2. Credit hidden in work in progress goods to be reversed. 3. Credit hidden in final products available in RG 1 as on 31.03....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ile deciding the stay application in the present appeal and it was held that the said amount can be retained by the department till final disposal of the present appeal for the purpose of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The recovery and pre-deposit of the balance amount was waived/stayed by this Tribunal. 2. Ld. Consultant for the appellant submits that the appropriation order dated 02.09.2005 of the adjudicating authority has not been appealed against by the department or by the appellants. The contention is that Rs. 1.75 Crores has been reversed by the appellant and the same is mentioned in Para 2 of the show cause notice. Since, the amount thus reversed is more than the re-quantified demand, his plea is that the amount of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion is that the appellant was liable to pay a total sum of Rs. 6,24,04,129/- in respect of all clearances effected to private parties as well as clearance of scrap for the period from 01.07.1995 to 31.03.2001. They had already deposited an amount of Rs. 1,85,29,045/- at the relevant time in their PLA and the balance amount of Rs. 4,38,75,084/- was debited in cash in the PLA on 26.07.2001. In other words, the differential duty of Rs. 4,38,75,084/- was in the nature of paying back the Modvat credit availed during the period. In the pleadings, the appellants have contended that in the "opt out" procedure, the conditions were not in line with principles laid down in the judicial pronouncements. During the oral pleadings, however, the Ld. Advoca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er is in accordance with the law because they request of the appellant was to opt out of modvat credit procedure after 31.03.2001. The adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand of Rs. 17,20,82,858/- by denying them the same. By permitting the appellant to retrospectively opt out of modvat credit scheme on the basis of CBEC vide D.O.F. No. 267/07/2002-CX-8 dated 31.03.2002, we find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a fair and judicious view in the matter and has rightly rejected the proposal in the order-in-original to demand the full credit taken for the period from 01.04.2000 to 16.06.2001. We find that he has correctly ordered the re-quantification after allowing the appellants to opt out with effect from 31.03.2001. The....