TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1302
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.03.2011. Appellant is engaged in manufacture of excisable goods including P & P Medicaments, Edible Preparations and Vegetable Oils etc. and availed cenvat credit on inputs, input services and capital goods. During verification of records, it is observed that the appellant had purchased fish oil from a local manufacturer and availed cenvat credit. Alleging that the appellant was not entitled to avail the credit and considering it as irregular availment of credit, show cause notice was issued on 30.03.2016 and Adjudication Authority as per Order-in-Original dated 30.05.2017, confirmed the demand with interest, appropriated the amount paid by the appellant and imposed penalty under 11AC (1)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved by s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eversal was effected only in the books of accounts and was inadvertently not reported in the ER-1 returns. Upon being pointed out by the Department, the Appellant duly reported the reversal under protest in the ER-1 return for the month of February 2016, filed on 09-03-2016. Learned CA draws our attention to the Notification No. 01/2011-CE dated 01.03.2011 and as per the said notification, exempted Excise Duty excess of the amount calculated at the rate of 1% ad valorem subject to condition that no credit of duty on inputs or tax on input services has been taken under the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Based on the above contention, and disregarding the submissions made by the Appellant, the Order-in-Original was passed confir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-Original, the payments were made under protest and same cannot be considered as admission of the appellant regarding their liability or admitting such credit as ineligible cenvat credit. Learned CA also draws our attention to the sale invoice issued by the appellant to buyer on 22.07.2014 by charging excise duty on the final product manufactured by them and the details of cenvat credit availed by them during the relevant period. However, the Appellate Authority, on its own, proceeded on the erroneous premise that the appeal was confined only to the issue of incorrect invocation of the extended period of limitation and did not consider the merits of the case. This is factually incorrect, as both the appeal memorandum and the written submiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... b. RALSON (INDIA) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH-I 2015 (319) E.L.T. 234 (S.C.) 4. Further Learned CA submits that the so-called restriction of CENVAT credit arises only from Notification No. 01/2011-CE and not from the proviso to Rule 3(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In para 20 of the Order-in-Original, the Original Authority records a finding that the Appellant is eligible to avail CENVAT credit on procurement of Fish Oil with effect from 17-07-2015. Pursuant to the amendment, and that no Show Cause Notice has been issued for the period post such amendment. However, in the very same paragraph, it is further observed that, in terms of the proviso to Rule 3(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the Appellant is not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....011. 7. Learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the respondent reiterated the finding in the impugned order and submits that only as per the Notification No. 35/2015-CE dated 17.07.2015, it is clarified that the restriction not to avail input credit for availing the notification is only to manufacturer of such goods and not the buyer of such goods under the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Learned AR further submits that since the issue is remanded by the First Appellate Authority with certain observations, it is fit case for remanding the matter and directing the Adjudication Authority to considering the issue and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 8. Heard both sides and perused the records. 9. I fin....