2023 (1) TMI 1044

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....otification No.33/2011-CE dated 25.06.2011. The appellant reversed cenvat credit of Rs. 3,24,664/- vide entry No.491/492/495/496 dated 27.06.2011 from their RG 23A Part II account towards amount equal to 5% of the value of the exempted clearances made on 27.06.2011, in terms of Rule 6(3)(i) of CCR. Subsequently, the appellant reversed total amount of duty of Rs. 5,41,069/- vide entry No. 525/524 dated 01.07.2011 from their R.G.23A part II account against the raw material in their stock and chose the second option of non-payment of duty and to maintain separate account as provided in Rule 6 of CCR. The appellant filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner seeking permission to retake credit of wrongly reversed said amount of Rs. 3,24....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ances made on 27.06.2011, therefore, the reversal made in terms of Rule 6 was rightly liable to be re-credit/ refunded. Therefore, the order-in-original as well as order-in-appeal are incorrect and illegal which need to be set aside and appeal be allowed. 3. Shri R.K. Agarwal, Learned Superintendent (Authorized Representative) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He also relied on the Board Circular No. 868/6/2008-CX dated 09.05.2008 and submitted that once the assessee availed the option under Rule 6(3), the same cannot be withdrawn during the said financial year, therefore, the appellant first reversed the amount of 5% in terms of Rule 6(3), the same cannot be allowed to be recridt/ refunded....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nished gods, therefore, the appellant have mistakenly reversed 5% in terms of Rule 6(3)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On realising this mistake they have reversed Rs. 5,41,069/- on the input, in process, and contained in the finished goods by following the Rule11(3) they have corrected the mistake, therefore, the amount @ 5% of exempted finished goods reversed by the appellant became excess reversal, hence the same is liable to be recredited/ refunded to the appellant. The contention of both the lower authorities as well as the submission of the learned Authorized Representative is that once the option of Rule 6(3)(i) is availed, the same cannot be withdrawn. In this regard, I find that as per the specific provision particularly in a cas....