TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 731
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 09.07.2004 during the period April 2004 to March 2007. M/s MSMPL simultaneously cleared identical goods on payment of applicable Central Excise Duty for Exports. M/s MSMPL was maintaining separate records for the two categories of goods i.e. exempted & duty paid as mandated in Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. On scrutiny of ER-1 returns for the Month of March 2017, it appears that they had availed consolidated cenvat credit by a singly entry of all the inputs used in the manufacture of Finished goods which were cleared without payment of duty under the Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 during the period April 2016 to March 2017. It appears that in respect of the goods which were cleared without payment of duty under Notification No. 30/2004-CE they had availed the consolidated Cenvat Credit by single entry for the period April 2016 to March 2017 and reversed an amount equal to 6% of the Value of such exempted goods as per the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004by single entry for the period April 2016 to March 2017 .It also appears that that they availed cenvat credit on exempted goods on monthly basis and reversed an amount equal to 6% of the va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n all the inputs and reversed CENVAT credit @ 6% of value of exempted goods. In the impugned order Learned Adjudicating authority also ignored the said facts. Therefore, non-mentioning of complete facts in the SCN and no finding been given on the contentions raised by the Appellant clearly shows that the authorities have violated the principles of natural justice. He placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Mars Shipping Services Vs. Commr. Of Cus., Chennai 2015(322) ELT 865. 2.2 He also submits that the appellant has already reversed the excess CENVAT credit balance arose due to Cenvat Credit taken in relation to exempted goods. Thus, the demand of duty confirmed may kindly be set aside. In the instant case, the departmental authorities have taken two different view i.e assessments on the same issue for the same period, as earlier the Jurisdictional Range Officer had asked the Appellant to reverse 6% on the value of exempted goods thereafter, the Learned Adjudicating authority has demanded Central Excise Duty by denying the exemption. The Learned Adjudicating authority cannot re-open such assessment in a different manner. 2.3 Without prejudice, he also submits that the den....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ESTAT -MUMBAI) 03. On the other hand, Shri Dinesh Prithiani, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Revenue as regard the appeal filed by the department reiterated the grounds of Appeal and in the matter of Appeal filed by M/s MSMPL submits that they are not entitled to the benefit of Notification No 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 as the condition of Notification No. 30/2004-CE was that no credit of excise duty on inputs has been taken by the manufacturer of such goods under the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. It is a trite law the condition of the exemption Notification should be strictly interpreted and followed. It is fact on record that the they took cenvat credit on inputs @12.5% on 31.03.2017 and on the same day, they reversed credit @6% under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. This is nothing but to enrich themselves by taking excess credit to the extent of 6.5%. He placed reliance on following judgments:- * DILIPKUMAR& CO. - 2018(361)ELT 577 (SC) * GNFC LTD. - 2009(240)ELT 661 (SC) 3.1 He also submits that the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is subordinate legislation. Section 5A is a provisions of Parent Act. Section 5A nowhere state that if Rule 6(3) complied w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... - 2007 (215) E.L.T. 489 (S.C.) * GODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD. V. CCE, MUMBAI - 2008 (229) E.L.T. 484 (S.C.) * REFNOL RESINS & CHEMICALS LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA - 2013 (287) E.L.T. 61 (GUJ.). The ratio of law declared by the above decisions to the effect that the credit initially taken if reversed subsequently is required to be considered as if no credit was ever taken and amounts to satisfying the condition of notification which are to the effect that no credit should be availed on inputs. We also note that Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's decision in the case CCE v. Ashima Dyecot Ltd. - 2008 (232) E.L.T. 580 (Guj.) = 2008 (12) S.T.R. 701 (Guj.) where the provisions of explanation to Rule 3, which also stands relied upon by the adjudicating authority in the present case, were taken note of, it was held that reversal would amount no credit situation. Inasmuch as the appellant has reversed the entire credit, either by way of payment of 8% or by debiting the same in Cenvat credit account, we find that the condition of notification is satisfied 4.1 We further noticed that this issue had come up for consideration before the Allahabad High Court in the case of Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. v....