9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1742 - AT - Central ExciseRejection of Refund claim - whether the appellant can take, utilise Cenvat Credit during the month subsequent to the months in which these were available when the appellants are availing exemption benefit under N/N. 32/99-CE? Held that - On plain reading of Para 2B of N/N. 32/99-CE, it is clear that the manufacturer would utilise the whole of Cenvat Credit first and thereafter will pay the amount by cash which would be refunded - In the present case, the appellant had not utilised the credit first which was retained by them. Hence, the order of the Adjudicating Authority for recovery of the said amount is justified. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues Involved:
Whether the appellant can utilize Cenvat Credit during the subsequent month while availing exemption under Notification No. 32/99-CE. Analysis: The case involved the appellant, engaged in the manufacture of insecticides, who filed an appeal against the rejection of a refund claim related to the Area Based Exemption under Notification No. 32/99-CE. The central issue revolved around the utilization of Cenvat Credit by the appellant while availing the exemption benefit. The Notification specified that the manufacturer must first utilize the whole of the Cenvat Credit available to them for payment of duty on goods cleared during the month before paying the balance amount in cash. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed a demand of &8377;1,54,620 under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeal). The appellant's counsel argued that there was no requirement for a one-to-one correlation for credit utilization under the Cenvat Rules and that there was no specific time limit prescribed for Cenvat Credit utilization under the rules. However, the Tribunal, in its judgment, emphasized the mandatory nature of para 2B of Notification No. 32/99-CE, which required the appellant to first utilize the entire Cenvat Credit available before making any cash payment. Since the appellant had not followed this requirement and retained the credit, the Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's order for recovery of the amount. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's appeal, citing that the case laws referred to by the appellant's counsel were not relevant to the specific context of this case. The judgment was pronounced on 24/11/2017 by SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA.
|
