2018 (10) TMI 756

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Sh. B.B. Jain, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan: The present appeal is against Order-in-Appeal No. 60(RK)CE/JPR/2017-18 dated 14.03.2018. 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of PVC compounds falling under Chapter 39 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. During the period under dispute, the appellant availed cenvat credit on goods procured fr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Notification No.1/2010 was allowed only after the amendment of This rule w.e.f. 20.01.2014. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority demanded reversal of Cenvat credit for the period upto 19.01.2014. 3. Heard Shri Alok Kothari, ld Advocate, representing the appellant as well as Shri V. B. Jain, ld. AR representing the Revenue. 4. Shri Alok Kothari summarised the arguments advanced on behalf o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y, since it is in the nature of removing an omission. 5. 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). 6. We have heard both sides and per....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at Credit Rules but the Notification no.56/2002 is included. The main submission of the appellant is that even in the absence of the benefit of Notification No.1/2010, M/s Ritzy Polymers have requested the jurisdictional authorities to permit them to continue to avail he benefit under Notification 56/2002 and if the duty is considered as paid under this Notification, there can be no objection to t....