9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 891 - AT - Central ExciseUtilization of credit on AED(GSI) for payment of Basic Excise Duty - introduction of explanation to Rule 3(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules w.e.f. 1-3-2003 - whether utilization of accumulated credit of of AED(GSI) towards payment of Basic Excise Duty on their final products is correct? - Held that - The issue is squarely covered by the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-III VERSUS CEAT LTD. 2010 (3) TMI 621 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , where it was held that the impugned credit has been legitimately earned by the assessee procurement of inputs on payment of duty and used for payment of duty following the amendment of Cenvat Credit Rules 2002, under Budget 2003 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues involved:
1. Utilization of Cenvat Credit of Additional duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) on inputs for payment of Basic Excise Duty on final products. 2. Recovery of Cenvat Credit availed prior to 01.04.2000 following amendments to Cenvat Credit Rules. 3. Legitimacy of credit availed and restoration of the same. Issue 1: The appellants availed Cenvat Credit of Additional duties of Excise (AED(GSI)) on tyre chord fabric, which accumulated until 1.3.2003. Initially, the credit could only be used for payment of AED(GSI) on final products, but after an amendment, it could be utilized for Basic Excise Duty. The appellants used the accumulated credit for Basic Excise Duty payment on final products. Subsequently, amendments were made to restrict the utilization of AED(GSI) credit towards Basic Excise Duty only. Issue 2: The Department sought recovery of Cenvat Credit availed prior to 01.04.2000, which was utilized for payment of duty, following statutory amendments. The appellants had re-credited the amount back to Cenvat Credit and informed the department. Show Cause Notices were issued for recovery on the grounds of incorrect availing of credit. The Commissioner confirmed the demands and imposed penalties, leading to appeals. Issue 3: The appellants argued that the issue was settled in their favor by previous Tribunal and High Court decisions. They contended that the credit availed was legal and should not be disallowed. They highlighted the procedural history and legal provisions supporting their case, emphasizing that the credit was restored following the statutory changes and payment made twice. The Department's representative cited cases in support of their position. Judgment: The Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, noting strong arguments presented. It was observed that previous decisions by the Tribunal and High Courts, including the appellants' own case, had settled the issue in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal referenced the case of CEAT India Ltd. and the Commissioner's decision in the appellants' Kankroli unit case to support their ruling. The Tribunal emphasized the legitimacy of the credit availed and the restoration process, concluding that the issue had reached finality. The appeals filed by the appellants were allowed, overturning the demands and penalties imposed by the Commissioner. (Order was pronounced in Open Court on 25/09/2018)
|
