TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 177
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant's raw material was attracting Additional Duty of Excise (Textile & Textile Articles) in terms of Section 3 of Additional Duties of Excise (Textile & Textile Articles) Act, 1978. Accordingly, they have been availing Cenvat credit on this ADE(T&TA). Subsequently, vide Notification No. 31/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004, the ADE(T&TA) such raw materials was exempted whole of the additional duty of excise (T&TA)leviable thereon under the said Act. However, the Cenvat credit availed before that was lying accumulated/ unutilized which had been carried forward from time to time. The case of the department is that the appellant is liable to reverse the Cenvat credit lying unutilized in respect of ADE(T&TA) in terms of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Limited vs. CCE, Madurai - 2014 SCC Online Mad 11549 (d) Ramco Inernational & Ors vs. CCE, Jallandhar - 2014 SCC Online CESTAT 618 (e) IBM India Private Limited vs. CCE, Pondicherry - 2019 SCC Online CESTAT 6717 3. He further submits that entire demand is time-barred as the appellant's action of taking credit and carrying forward was declared in ST-3 returns since a long time i.e. from 2004 that ADE(T&TA) was made exempted. The show cause notice was issued on 26.11.2012 in respect of the credit lying unutilized as on 09.07.2004 when the ADE(T&TA) was exempted vide Notification No. 31/2004-CE and thereafter the same was carried forward. Therefore, there is no suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. Hence, extended period....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant's final product was exempted as well as credit of ADE(T&TA) was lying during the period much before the insertion of Rule 11(3) in Cenvat Credit Rules. Therefore the said Rule cannot be applied and consequently ADE(T&TA) cannot be demanded. The very same issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of IBM India Private Limited (supra), wherein the Tribunal has passed the following order:- "19. As far as the first question of reversal of Cenvat credit availed on inputs lying unutilized in the Cenvat credit account or contained in the inputs lying in stock or final products lying in stock on the day when the final products becomes fully exempt is concerned, we find that Rule 11(3) of CCR 2004 specifically provides for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r been the intention to give retrospective application to Rule 11(3). In consequence, demand on this count along with interest and penalties on this account needs to be set aside and we do so, 21. As far as the demand on account of transfer of Cenvat credit is concerned, it is clear from the details narrated in the SCN and the impugned order that all assets and liabilities of the previous entity have been passed on to the successor entity. Under these circumstances, the allegation that there is no evidence to satisfy the Asst. Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise that stock of inputs as such or in process or the capital goods have also been transferred to the successor entity is, at best, far fetched. The satisfaction of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd finished goods required to be reversed when final product is exempted? (iii) Whether the CESTAT was justified in passing the impugned order without discussing the facts of the case alleged to be covered and its application to the case on hand? 5. This Court in the case of the Commissioner Central Excise v. TAFE Limited (Tractor Division) disposed off on 1st March 2011 [2011 (268) E.L.T. 49 (Kar.)] after referring to the various judgments held that once the input credit is legally taken and utilized on the dutiable final product, it need not be reversed on the final product being exempted subsequently. Only if any products are purchased subsequent to the said exemption and if any tax is paid on such inputs, as the final product is ex....