2019 (3) TMI 1375

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ants are engaged in the manufacture of components of moulds and connectors falling under Chapters 84 and 85 of CETA and are availing CENVAT credit on capital goods, inputs and input service. They are also engaged in the trading of the aforesaid goods. They are also following Rule 6(3)(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR) and reversing 6% of the value of the exempted service (trading). The appellant has taken credit as per Rule 6 and accordingly Rs. 21,88,260/- was paid as on 11/08/2014 and thereafter on 17/09/2014, the appellant calculated the amount of credit to be reversed as per Rule 6(3)(i) of CCR and further reversed an amount of Rs. 7,29,651/- . The appellants were under a bona fide belief that on 17/09/2014, they have reversed the CENVAT ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t-17/03/2012 only if the CENVAT credit was wrongly taken and utilized. He further submitted that the documents on record and those produced before the authorities below clearly show that the closing credit in the CENVAT account in the case of the appellant was much more than the total amount of credit taken as wrongfully availed. Therefore it is clear that the CENVAT credit availed was not utilized by the appellant. He further submitted that once the appellant has already reversed the credit wrongly taken before utilization, no show-cause notice could have been issued with reference to Rule 14 of CCR. He further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) has wrongly made reference to Explanation III to Rule 6(3D) of CCR to justify the Orderin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....himself has agreed to pay under Rule 6 and it is not the case of wrong availment of credit. He also defended the impugned order of the Commissioner(Appeals) wherein the Commissioner(Appeals) made reference to Explanation III to Rule 6(3D) of CCR to justify the Order-in-Original. He also relied upon the following decisions:- i. CCE, Indore Vs. Metalman Industries Ltd. [2016(340) ELT 524 (Tri. Del.)] ii. Punjab Tractors Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh [2005(181) ELT 380 (SC)] 6. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of the material on record and the various decisions relied upon by both sides, I find that in the present case, the appellant has reversed the credit on 17/09/2014 which they have wrongly taken as per the m....