2019 (3) TMI 408

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....riff Act, 1985. The appellant avails Cenvat Credit in respect of central excise duty paid on inputs and capital goods and service tax on the input services. During the disputed period, the appellant had claimed duty exemption in respect of supply of the said final product to specified buyers, in terms of Notification No. 64/95 - C.E. (N.T.) dated 16.03.1995. Since the excisable goods manufactured by the appellant attract payment of Central Excise duty and also exempted by virtue of above notification, the case of the appellant falls under the provisions of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant had opted for payment of amount as provided under sub-rule 3 of Rule 6 ibid. Being a manufacturer of excisable goods, the appellant ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the other hand, Learned AR appearing for Revenue has reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. The fact is not under dispute that the appellant had inadvertently reversed the amount of 7% in the Cenvat account, instead of the prescribed amount of 6% of the value of exempted goods. The process of reversal of excess Cenvat credit and taking of re-credit of the said excess amount involve only accounting/book adjustment. There was practically no outflow of fund towards this accounting adjustment. Thus, the provisions of Section 11B of the Act for refund claim will not be applicable to the case in hand. By analyzing the statutory provisions, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2004 as it existed during the relevant period viz., 2004-2006 getting the reversal of the entry is in tune with its stand taken which was accepted by the Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation. 14. We do not find any good ground to hold that it was a case of refund of duly falling under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and that the assessee was to comply with the provisions of Section 11B of the Act. The view of the Tribunal that the assessee should seek reversal in the appropriate judicial forum, if the assessee was aggrieved by the earlier order herein does not arise at all. 15. even a cursory reading of the order of the tribunal in the earlier round of litigation would show that it accepted the assessee's case of s....