9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (9) TMI 877 - AT - Central ExciseWaiver of pre deposit - Denial of CENVAT Credit - Proviso to Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004 read with Corrigendum No. 334/3/2004-TRU Part-1, dated 9-7-2004 - Held that - appellant switched over to the exemption regime on 9-1-2006 and accordingly cleared their final products without payment of duty thereafter. The only condition attached to the exemption was embodied in the aforesaid proviso was to the effect that the exemption was not applicable to the goods in respect of which credit of duty on inputs had been taken under the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2002. It is not in dispute that the appellant did not avail CENVAT credit on inputs. The Notification did not bar the availment of CENVAT credit on capital goods - prima facie, the appellant has made out a strong case against the demand - Stay granted.
Issues:
1. Waiver and stay sought for adjudged dues on CENVAT credit denied on capital goods, duty demanded on inputs, and penalty. Analysis: The appellant filed an application seeking waiver and stay concerning the adjudged dues, including CENVAT credit denial on capital goods, duty demanded on inputs, and a penalty. The demand for CENVAT credit denial on capital goods was based on a notification and corrigendum. The appellant transitioned to an exemption regime on a specific date and cleared final products without paying duty thereafter. The exemption had a condition that it did not apply to goods for which duty credit on inputs was taken under CENVAT Credit Rules 2002. Since the appellant did not avail CENVAT credit on inputs and the notification did not prohibit availing credit on capital goods, a strong case was established against the demand of Rs. 2,65,203. Upon reviewing the submissions from both sides, the judge found a prima facie case against the demand of Rs. 68,132 for duty on inputs cleared as such. Consequently, the stay application was allowed, providing relief to the appellant regarding the disputed amounts. The judgment was pronounced and dictated in open court, concluding the matter.
|
