2024 (6) TMI 615

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... at its manufacturing unit located in the area specified under exemption Notification no. 20/2007-C.E. dated 25.04.2007 in the State of Assam. In terms of Rule 4(2) (b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant had availed cenvat credit of Rs. 3,42,444/- and Rs. 9,649 (AED) being the 50% of the excise duty suffered on capital goods received during 2011-12. The appellant was entitled to avail cenvat credit of the balance 50% of the excise duty, which the appellant had availed in the month of May, 2012. The department contended that the appellant ought to have availed the said cenvat credit of Rs. 3,52,093 in the month of April, 2012 itself. Since the appellant has availed the cenvat credit in the month of May 2012, it was alleged that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....There is no provision in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 forcing the appellant to avail the balance 50% the excise duty suffered on capital goods in the month of April of the succeeding financial year. 3.2. The appellant submits that the issue is squarely covered by the ratio of the decision of CESTAT, Delhi in the case of CCE vs New India Wire and Cables [2008 (232) ELT 681 (Tri-Del)]. In this case, the assessee working under similar area-based exemption notification had availed the Cenvat credit in one month but carried forward and utilized the same in subsequent months. The department disputed the same and sought to recover the excess refund sanctioned to the assessee in the initial month where the Cenvat credit was not fully utilized. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....50% cenvat credit on capital goods in the succeeding financial year. There is no provision in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 to insist upon the appellant to avail the balance cenvat credit attributable to capital goods in the month of April itself, of the succeeding financial year. Hence, we observe that the allegation of the department is contrary to statutory provisions. 6.2. The appellant submits that even if they had availed and utilized the balance 50% cenvat credit attributable to capital goods in April, 2012, the amount of refund sanctioned would have remained the same, because the said refund was granted subject to the ceiling by way of percentage of value addition i.e. 36%. Thus, there was no impact on the amount refundable to the ....