Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2002 (10) TMI 137

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., they debited an amount of Rs. 1,15,16,826/- towards duty on goods cleared during the period 1-8-2000 to 15-8-2000. The department alleged that the appellants utilized excess Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 40,98,661/- which was not, allegedly, available to them under the provisions of Rule 57AB(1) (b) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Therefore, by show-cause notice, the department sought to recover from them a duty amount of Rs. 40,98,661/- towards duty on the clearances for the period 1 to 15 August, 2000 as also to impose on them penalty under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The party denied the department's allegations and resisted the proposals for recovery of duty and imposition of penalty. The Commissioner of Centra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... & Ors. [2001 (43) RLT 131]. He argued that the appellants had a vested right to take credit on the duty-paid inputs received during the first fortnight of a calander month and to utilize the same for payment of duty on final product cleared during that fortnight. That right could not be taken away by the Notification which was issued after that fortnight and after the credit was taken by making entry in RG-23A Part II. Counsel further submitted that, as the credit was lawfully taken, there was no valid reason for imposition of any penalty on the party under Rule 173Q(1). 4. Ld. SDR reiterated the cross-objections filed by the department, and further sought to rely on the Board's Circular No. 542/38/2000-CX, dated 25-8-2000. 5. We hav....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is covered by the main provision of Clause (b) without the proviso. Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 57AB [as amended by Notification No. 48/2000-C.E. (N.T.)] reads as under :- "The Cenvat credit may be utilised for payment of any duty of excise on any final products manufactured by the manufacturer or for payment of duty on inputs or Capital goods themselves if such inputs are removed as such or after being partially processed or such capital goods are removed as such : Provided that while paying duty in the manner specified under sub-rule (1) of Rule 49 or sub-rule (1) of Rule 173G, as the case may be, the Cenvat credit shall be utilised only to the extent such credit is available on the fifteenth day of a month for payment of du....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....an be discharged by fifth of the following month, payment of duty from the Cenvat Credit Account maintained by the assessee cannot exceed the balance at the last day of the month." 7. The above clarification cannot be relied on to contend that Cenvat credit on inputs received during the first fortnight of a calander month, taken in RG-23A Part-II on the 16th day of the month, would not be available for utilisation on the 20th day of the month (the last day prescribed for payment of duty for the said fortnight) for utilisation in payment of duty on final products cleared during the said fortnight. The Board's clarification is only to the effect that the credit available cannot extend to inputs received beyond the fortnight. In the instant....