TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 655
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under exemption Notification No. 32/99-C.E. dated 08.07.1999 on the ground of non-utilization of entire CENVAT Credit availed on inputs during the month of November 2002 which was subsequently utilized in December 2002. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz. 'Corrugated Sheets, Asbestos Cement Plain Sheets and Accessories' classifiable under sub-heading no. 6811 4010, 6811 4020 and 6811 4090 at its manufacturing unit located in the area specified under exemption Notification no. 32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 in the State of Assam. Since the appellant had undertaken expansion at its manufacturing unit in the specified area pursuant to New Industrial Policy Resolution notifie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d shall not exceed the duty paid less the amount of CENVAT Credit availed in respect of duty paid on inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of goods cleared under the said notification. Under sub-section 4 of Section 153 of the said Finance Act, the Department was empowered to recover, within 30 days, inter alia any amount of duty which had been refunded but would not have been refunded if the restrictive condition brought in by 61/2002-CE (supra) was made applicable right from 08.07.1999. 3. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Guwahati issued the Recovery Order dated 02.06.2003 wherein the recovery of Rs.16,62,336/- out of the amount of duties earlier refunded to the appellant vide order dated 28.02.2003 for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld have remained the same that was originally granted. Thus, there was no impact on the amount refundable to the appellant over a period of 2-3 months. The overall amount of the refund for the period from November, 2002 to January, 2003 at Rs. 31,95,949/- remains same irrespective of the month of availment and utilization of CENVAT Credit in question. (iii) It transpires that the appellant had no intention to claim exemption benefits by making deliberate accumulation of CENVAT Credit. Had the appellant been allowed to settle the duty liability on monthly basis instead of fortnightly basis, the benefit of exemption would have accrued to the appellant in immediate succeeding month. Besides, the appellant had also settled the duty liability....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h where the CENVAT Credit was not fully utilized. The CESTAT, New Delhi allowed the contention of the assessee that once the very same amount of CENVAT Credit was utilized in the subsequent period, there is no loss to the revenue and thus, no demand is sustainable. It was also held that confirming demand in such a scenario would defeat the purpose of the notification. The same was relied upon in the case of M/s. Singla Cables vs. CCE [2015 (2) TMI 381-CESTAT NEW DELHI]. (vi) Further, having followed the said ratio, the jurisdictional Bench of CESTAT has allowed the exemption in identical facts in the following judicial pronouncements: (a) M/s. Ozone Pharmaceuticals Limited vs CCE&ST, Guwahati [2023 (9) TMI 1371-CESTAT KOLKATA] (b) M/s....