2026 (8) TMI 1303

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., of Rs.1,47,18,518/-, availed during the period 01.08.2012 to 19.01.2014, on the inputs procured from units who are otherwise availing the area-based exemption as contained under Notification 01/2010 dated 06.02.2010, for the reason that such credit was not admissible prior to the amendment in Rule 12 w.e.f. 19.01.2014. Hence, this appeal. 2. Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the appellants, submits elaborately on the issue of limitation. He submits that the appellants have been filing refund claims regularly and the same were being sanctioned; the fact, that the appellant was availing CENVAT credit on the inputs supplied by the units situated in Jammu & Kashmir, was known to the Department as early as 2012-13; the appellant and their....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erused the records of the case. We find that the issue is no longer res integra having been decided by this Bench in the case of Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. vide Final Order No.60483/2026 dated 03.08.2026. This Bench held that: 4. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that issues to decide are as to whether the appellants are eligible for the CENVAT credit availed by them on the inputs procured by them from the units which were availing exemption under Notification No.01/2010-CE dated 06.02.2010 before the amendment in Rule 12 w.e.f. 20.01.2014 and as to whether, extended period of limitation is invocable in the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that Rule 3 of the CCR, 2004 provides that a manufa....