9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 314 - HC - Central ExciseApplicability of amendment to Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 vide Finance Act, 2010 effective from 08/05/10 to 07/11/10, for the period from January 2009 to December 2009 - restriction to the period from 10/09/04 to 31/03/08 - failure to maintain separate accounts in respect of goods used in the manufacture of exempted and dutiable goods. HELD THAT - The issue answered by the Bench in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM VERSUS M/S. BURN STANDARD CO., LIMITED 2013 (2) TMI 35 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and the factual matrix upon which those questions have been posited, is identical. In this case as well, the Revenue has not disputed the fact that proper reversal of credit was attributable to the DBM and hence, the question of a further demand does not really arise. Thus, there is no necessity for any further enquiry. As the order of this Court in above case, is stated to have attained finality, applying the ratio of the same, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and order of the CESTAT dated 20.03.2012 is confirmed - petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the Amendment to Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Application of the Amendment without the assessee's application and evidence. Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of the Amendment to Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 The High Court of Madras considered the appeal challenging the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) order dated 20.03.2012. The primary question revolved around the correct application of the Amendment to Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, introduced by the Finance Act, 2010. The court examined whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in applying the Amendment retrospectively for the period from January 2009 to December 2009, even though the Amendment was specifically restricted to the period from 10/09/04 to 31/03/08. The court also assessed whether the Tribunal's application of the Amendment without the assessee's application and supporting evidence was justified. Issue 2: Application of the Amendment without the assessee's application and evidence The Court addressed the concern raised by the respondent/assessee regarding the remand ordered by the Tribunal, emphasizing that the lower authorities had correctly found the assessee's reversal to be accurate. The Court referenced a previous case involving similar questions for the period from April 2008 to December 2008. The Court highlighted the necessity for the assessee to comply with the conditions specified under the Finance Act, 2010, including submitting documentary evidence and a certificate from a Chartered Accountant or Cost Accountant within the stipulated timeframe. The judgment reiterated the importance of maintaining separate accounts for goods used in the manufacture of exempted and dutiable goods, emphasizing the significance of compliance with the CENVAT Credit Rules. The Court also compared the current appeal with a previous case involving the reversal of credit related to Dead Burnt Magnesite (DBM), an exempt product. The judgment emphasized the importance of maintaining separate accounts for the utilization of inputs in exempt and dutiable products. The Court confirmed the Tribunal's decision, highlighting the retrospective effect of the Amendment and the necessity for compliance with the prescribed procedures under the CENVAT Credit Rules. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the connected Miscellaneous Petition, affirming the Tribunal's order and directing the consequential order to be passed within a specified timeframe. The judgment reiterated the importance of adherence to the statutory provisions and the significance of maintaining accurate records in compliance with the CENVAT Credit Rules.
|
