9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (8) TMI 443 - AT - Central ExciseNotification No. 45/2003-C.E. dated 14.05.2003- Cenvat Credit- The department confirmed the demand and penalty on the ground that the benefit of Notification No. 45/2003-C.E., dated 14.05.2003 availed by them, during the period 2003-04 to 2006-07 in respect of Ceramic Tiles manufactured by them, was not available inasmuch as the condition attached to the Notification does not stand fulfilled by them. Appellant reversed the credit. Held that- only objection for denial of benefit of notification by the revenue no longer survive, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
Issues:
Confirmation of duty and penalty imposition based on non-fulfillment of conditions of Notification No. 45/2003-C.E. regarding concessional rate of duty for Ceramic Tiles manufactured by the appellant. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad involved the confirmation of duty amounting to Rs.2,60,74,879/- against the appellant, along with the imposition of an identical penalty. This decision was made due to the appellant allegedly not fulfilling the conditions of Notification No. 45/2003-C.E. related to the concessional rate of duty for Ceramic Tiles manufactured by them between 2003-04 to 2006-07. The condition specified that the benefit of the concessional rate of duty would be available only if no credit of the duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of Ceramic Tiles was taken under Rule 3 or Rule 11 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The Revenue contended that the appellant availed credit for items like MS angels/bars and grinding moulds, thus violating the conditions of the Notification. The appellant argued that the goods in question should be considered as capital goods rather than inputs, and the credit availed was subsequently reversed along with interest. They relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Hello Minerals Water Pvt. Limited v. UOI and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of CCE v. Ashima Dyecot Limited, which emphasized that the reversal of credit amounts to non-availing of credit on inputs. These decisions were based on the declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires Pvt. Limited v. CCE. The appellant contended that the reversal of credit, even if done subsequently, should be considered as if no credit was availed, thus meeting the conditions of the Notification. Although the decision of Chandrapur Magnet Wires Pvt. Limited was presented to the adjudicating authority, it was not followed on the grounds that the reversal of credit was not done prior to the clearance of goods. However, the Tribunal highlighted that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and Hon'ble Allahabad High Court had held that even subsequent reversal of credit should be considered as non-availing of credit. In the present case, the appellant had reversed the entire credit along with interest, leading to the conclusion that no credit was availed. Consequently, the condition of the Notification was not contravened, and the benefit of the Notification should be available to the appellant. The advocate for the appellant assured that they would not seek re-credit of the Modvat amount already debited by them. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the objection raised by the Revenue for denying the benefit of the Notification no longer existed. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. The stay petition and appeal were disposed of accordingly.
|
