2019 (1) TMI 1035

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Appellant Shri K.B. Nanaiah, Asst. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 20/01/2009 passed by the Commissioner whereby the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of Rs. 75,23,772/- on the appellant under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004) read with Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 bein....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t not exceeding 50% of the duty paid on such capital goods in the same financial year. The balance of CENVAT credit may be taken in any financial year subsequent to the financial year in which the capital goods were received in the premises of the provider of output service vide sub-rule 2(b) of Rule 4 of the CCR. As such, it appeared the assessee had taken excess credit on capital goods during th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed the credit and kept it unutilized and therefore there is no liability on the appellant on merely availing the credit in terms of Rule 14 of CCR. He further submitted that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled in plethora of cases. He further submitted that it is an admitted fact the appellant has only availed the credit and not utilized the same. Therefore the liability under R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... inadvertently was not utilized. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellant has violated the provisions contained in Rule 4(2(b) of CCR. 6. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of the material on record, we find that in the present case, the appellant has taken irregular credit but the same was not utilized and it ....