9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant, recipient of the inputs supplied by the EOU, cannot claim CENVAT credit in excess of this amount. The appellant took twice the said amount as CENVAT credit on the inputs for the said period. Therefore, as rightly found by the lower appellate authority, they are liable to reverse an amount of Rs. 9,99,177/- in their CENVAT account and, in the event of non-reversal, the inadmissible credit is liable to be recovered in accordance with law. - E/739/2003-MUM - A/205/2010-WZB/C-II/EB - Dated:- 30-6-2010 - S/Shri P.G. Chacko, S.K. Gaule, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Naresh Thacker, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Manish Mohan, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. There is no repr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner (Appeals) by the department. The appellate authority allowed the department s appeal in view of the restriction to CENVAT credit of CVD laid down in Notification No. 21/99-C.E. ibid and the clarificatory Circular dated 24-6-1999. The present appeal of the assessee is against the appellate Commissioner s decision. In this appeal, the appellant has taken excerpts from Notifications 5/94-C.E. (N.T.) and 21/99-C.E. (N.T.) and has contended that they are entitled to take CENVAT credit of the entire amount of CVD payable on like goods if imported into India. 4. The learned SDR has invited our attention to the relevant provisions of para 2 of Notification No. 21/99-C.E. (N.T.). According to these provisions, credit of specified duty in r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oices issued by the EOU to the appellant and, therefore, the ratio of the Tribunal s Larger Bench decision is not applicable. 6. After considering the grounds of the appeal and the submissions of the learned SDR, we have found a valid point in the submissions of the SDR. At the outset, we may state that the factual situation considered by the Larger Bench in Vikram Ispat is altogether different. On the other hand, the decision cited by the learned SDR (GTN Textiles Ltd.) is apposite to the facts of this case. The CVD element of the measure of the duty excise paid by the EOU on the inputs was clearly discernible from the EOU s invoices and the same is Rs. 9,99,177/-. Notification No. 21/99 ibid, in para 2(c)(ii) thereof, restricted the cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
