TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1065
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e notice. Being aggrieved, the appellants are before us. The dispute relates to period 01.03.2006, the appellants had availed Cenvat credit under Notification No. 29/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 and Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 simultaneously, in respect of the different consignments. For the same period, they have availed Cenvat credit on inputs used in respect of consignments under Notification No. 29/2004-CE and similarly for other period, they have reversed the credit in respect of consignment cleared duty free under Notification No. 30/2004-CE. It was the contention of the appellants that they have followed different procedures as prescribed by the boards from time to time and since they have made reversal as required in re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....well as exempted goods as per established norm, prevailing at the relevant time. In support of their claim, they have also produced the certificate from CA regarding the availment and reversal of input credits regarding the clearance of duty paid and exempted goods. It is also submitted that the appellant followed the course methods on the basis of Circular No: 485/3/2007-CX dated 01.02.2007. 4. Learned AR on behalf of Revenue substantiate the order passed by the lower Adjudicating Authority on the ground that the Cenvat Credit has not been taken immediately and the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant has not been properly explained to the Adjudicating Authority, and therefore, he has confirmed the demand. 5. Heard parties ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 29/2004-CE is concerned, there was confusion in the textile industry as some of the them were availing the Cenvat Credit of duty paid on all the inputs used in the manufacture of goods cleared under these two Notifications and reverse the credit afterwards to the extent used in the goods cleared under the Notification 30/2004-CE, however, a few manufactures were availing the proportionate credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of goods cleared under Notification No. 29/2004-CE at the time of clearance. In both the situation, in result remained the same which is incompliance with the conditions laid down in the Notifications referred above. The appellant changed the methodology for reversal of Cenvat Credit with effect from 1/04/2006....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3/2007 as the appellant has started the proportionate availment of Credit at the end of the month in view of the aforesaid board Circular. The learned Adjudicating Authority denied the aforesaid credit and confirmed the demand, without appreciating the fact that the method of taking proportionate credit at the end of the month was true as per the procedure prescribed in the CBEC Circular referred(Supra). The confusion arises because of the fact that the appellant carried out the transaction on the given date i.e. 31/03/2007 (a) Credit was taken in respect of stock of goods lying in the factory as on 31/3/2006 (b) Reversal of credit in relation to stock lying in the factory as on 31/1/2007. 7. Both these entries were mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the inputs, in question, had been received in the mines, the judgement of the Apex Court on the issue as to whether an assessee would be eligible for cenvat credit in respect of inputs used in the mines, even if the mines are captive mines, was against the appellant and this issue was finally resolved in favour of the appellant only by the Apex Courts judgement in the case of Vikram Cement (supra). The point of dispute is as to whether the cenvat credit can be denied if an assessee does not avail the cenvat credit in respect of certain inputs immediately on their receipt. 8. From a plain reading of the above provisions, it is clear that what the Rules prescribes is that a manufacturer can avail cenvat credit in respect of certain....