TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1407
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls such as acrylic resins and construction chemicals and are registered with the Central Excise Department and are clearing their products on payment of central excise duty after crossing the SSI limit of Rs. 150 lakhs and also availing the facilities of CENVAT credit as per the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, for short). During the scrutiny of ER3 returns filed by the appellant for the period October 2014 to December 2014, it was seen that they had taken and utilized the CENVAT credit of Rs. 4,03,302/- against entry 'cenvat credit reversed 05.10.2013 to 25.11.2013' in their Cenvat credit statement. On enquiry, it was clarified by the assessee that they had re-credited the cenvat credit originally availed during the period 05.10.2013 to 26.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Commissioner(Appeals) in para 14 has observed that "the appellant has attempted to take credit of Rs. 4,03,302/- of duty paid on inputs received during 05.10.2013 to 26.11.2013 and utilize the same for payment of duty during the quarter 10/2014 to 12/2014 on the basis of duty paid challan dt. 26/11/2014". The counsel submitted that this finding is incorrect because the appellant had taken recredit of the cenvat credit on the inputs received and utilized by them for the clearance of their final products during the period of dispute. He further submitted that in their statement of input credit submitted along with ER3 returns for October to December 2014, the wordings "used" is CENVAT credit reversed 05.10.2013 to 25.11.2013 and he has p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an only be taken by the appellant after reversing the input credit of Rs. 4,03,302/- along with interest in cash and that they have rightly taken the recredit which is sought to be denied by the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that initially during the disputed period the appellants have availed the credit and paid the duty through CENVAT credit which was in violation of Rule 8(3A) of the CCR. Subsequently, the Department realized this fact and thereafter the Superintendent of Central Excise vide his letter dt. 20/11/2014 directed the appellant to pay the amount of Rs. 4,03,302/- in cash a....