9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 593 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - clearance of input as such - whether the duty is payable equivalent to the CENVAT Credit availed on such inputs or in terms of Section 4 and the rules made thereunder for clearance of the goods to their own unit? - Rule 3(4) of CCR. Held that - the appellant was required to pay the duty on removal of inputs as such, only equal to the amount of CENVAT Credit availed on such inputs - There is no dispute that the appellant have paid the excise duty on the removal of input as such to their own unit equal to the CENVAT Credit availed on such inputs - duty was not required to be paid in terms of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000 as alleged by the Revenue - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
Interpretation of duty payable during a specific period for clearance of inputs as such. Analysis: The issue in this case revolved around determining the duty payable for the clearance of inputs as such during a specified period. The appellant argued that as per Rule 3(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, the duty payable should only be equivalent to the CENVAT Credit availed on the inputs. The appellant contended that they had already discharged the excise duty equivalent to the CENVAT Credit amount during the relevant period. On the other hand, the Revenue maintained that the duty should be paid as per Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. However, the Tribunal examined Rule 3(4) in detail, which stated that the duty payable on the removal of inputs as such should be equal to the amount of CENVAT Credit availed on those inputs. The Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed paid the excise duty on the removal of inputs as such to their own unit, matching the CENVAT Credit availed on those inputs. Consequently, the Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's argument that the duty should be paid in accordance with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Therefore, after considering the submissions from both parties and analyzing the relevant rules, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. The judgment was pronounced on 22/03/2018.
|
