2019 (8) TMI 1175

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....21/2018 and 2623/2018: 1. For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay in filing the appeals is condoned. The applications are allowed. D.B. Excise Appeal Nos.203/2018, 197/2018 and 199/2018: 2. The revenue is aggrieved by the order of CESTAT, which by its impugned decision, held that failure of the assessee/respondent to exercise option under Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - as amended later in the year 2011 - 2015, did not disentitle it to input credit which was otherwise admissible. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee manufactures autoparts which are exciseable. It procured steel coils of various widths and sizes as inputs for use in the manufature of their final product during the period from....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nnot be included for purposes of reversal as required under Rule 6(3)(i). Further, they have also argued that for clearance of inputs as such, there is no need for reversal of the credit availed on input service. Credit reversed already which should be accepted as sufficient since the exercise of option under Rule 6(3A) is only a procedural violation. 9. It is seen from the record that the appellant has taken out registration as a dealer w.e.f. 14.11.2013. After such date, the procurement of inputs and clearance of the same on reversal of cenvat credit is to be considered as an activity of trading and all consequences of specifying trading as an exempted service (w.e.f. 01.04.2011) will follow. It is seen that Rule 6(3)(i)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is that the decision of the CESTAT, even while remitting the matter for verification is erroneous, in as much as the assessee did not follow the procedure prescribed by Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It is urged that once the Rules directed the concerned party to avail of a benefit by following a particular procedure, in the absence of its mandate, the benefit could not be granted. 5. Learned counsel for the revenue relied upon the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal & Ors, (2011) 1 SCC 236 and the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Nicholas Piramal (India) Ltd. 2009 (244) ELT 321 (Bom.). 6. At the outset, this Court not....