TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 64
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....012 to 19.01.2014; a show-cause notice dated 01.06.2017 demanding service tax of Rs.1,75,82,647/- was issued to the appellants; the said show-cause notice was confirmed vide impugned order dated 06.12.2018 wherein the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand along with interest and equal penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 by invoking extended period of limitation. Hence, this appeal. 2. Shri P.K. Hasija, assisted by Shri Shivang Puri, learned Counsels for the appellants, submits that admissibility of CENVAT credit is governed by Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules and there is nothing in the language of Rule 12 of CENVAT Credit Rules which restricts the entitlement; in terms of Rule 3, the input should be duty paid and received in the factory of the manufacturer; there is no restriction that credit shall not be available if the supplier had availed refund of the same under some notification; it is pertinent to note that Rule 3(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules categorically specifies that CENVAT credit shall not be allowed if the manufacturer or producer of final products has availed the benefit of Notification No. 01/2011-CE dated 01.03.2011 and Notification No. 12/2012-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....different meaning as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Dilip Kumar 2018(361) ELT577(SC). He further submits that it was held in the cases of UOI Vs Willowood Chemicals Pvt Ltd. 2022(60) GSTL 3(SC) and veer oversees 2015(18) GSTL 59(TRI-LB) that Tribunal being a creature of the statute cannot travel beyond the provisions of law. 6. Ld. Authorised Representative further submits that the appellant's contention that without an appeal under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act 1944, demand under Section 11A is not sustainable, is incorrect; reliance on Gellapore Tea Estate 2011 (268) ELT (GAU) and JMW Pvt Ltd. vide final order dt. 04/06/2018 is misplaced. He submits that this is not a case of demand of erroneous refund under Section 11A but is a demand of Cenvat Credit incorrectly availed. 7. Ld. Authorised Representative further submits that the appellant had neither disclosed the fact of availment of credit, on the supplies made by the units working under Notification No. 1/2010, in the ER-I Returns; they did not inform the department in any manner and the omission could only be detected on the conduct of audit. He relies on Sunil HI-Tech Engineers ltd. 2014 (36)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to the Excise Tariff Act, leviable under the Excise Act; [Provided that CENVAT credit of such duty of excise shall not be allowed to be taken when paid on any goods- (a) in respect of which the benefit of an exemption under Notification No. 1/2011-C.E., dated the 1st March, 2011 is availed; or (b) specified in serial numbers 67 and 128 in respect of which the benefit of an exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-C.E., dated the 17th March, 2012 is availed;] 10.1. Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit, Rules 2004 reads under as under : Rule 12. Special dispensation in respect of inputs manufactured in factories located in specified areas of North East region, Kutch district of Gujarat, State of Jammu and Kashmir and State of Sikkim- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules but subject to the proviso to clause (i) of sub rule (1) of the rule 3, where a manufacturer has cleared any inputs or capital goods, in terms of notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance [Department of Revenue) No.32/99-Central Excise, dated the 8th July, 1999 (G.S.R. 508(E), dated the 8th July, 1999) or No.33/99- Central Excise, dated the 8th July, 1999 (G.S.R. 509(E), dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... argument of the Ld. Authorised Representative that unless otherwise specified, a notification has to be considered only prospectively. When there is no confusion, Legislative intent cannot be read into otherwise clear words of the statute. We find that the argument of the Ld. authorised representative is acceptable. If the Notification No. 1/2010 is not listed under Rule 12 before 19/01/2014, it cannot be assumed that it will have the retrospective effect and during the period 1/05/2012 to 19/11/2014 also the credit is admissible even when the suppliers availed the Notification 1/2010. As contended by the Department when the Notification is clear one cannot read into the notification and the Legislative intent behind it. Moreso, CESTAT, being a creature of statute, has no mandate to read the legislative intent. We find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip Kumar and Co. (Supra) held that taxing statutes should be interpreted strictly by holding as follows : 41. After thoroughly examining the various precedents some of which were cited before us and after giving our anxious consideration, we would be more than justified to conclude and also compelled to hold that ev....