9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Circular supersede the earlier Circular dated 1-7-2002 - The revenue cannot argue against its own Circular, when the Board has stated that the provisions of the Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 would apply in respect of the capital goods and inputs on which credit has been availed are removed as such - the impugned order is correct, legal and does not suffer from any infirmity – Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No.E/90/2007 - Final Order No. A/10946/2013-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 5-8-2013 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran and Mr. H.K. Thakur, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri S.R. Dixit, Adv. For the Respondent: Shri G.P. Thomas, A.R. ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran; This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.KS/ 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atio of law decided in the case of Eicher Tractors 2005 (189) ELT 131 (Tri-LB), is not correct and not applicable. 6. We find that the facts are not in much dispute as the respondents, after availing the CENVAT Credit on the inputs, had cleared the same as such by reversing exact amount of CENVAT Credit availed by them on such inputs. The findings of first appellate authority on this point are reproduced below:- 7. The issue involved in the instant case is whether the duty paid/ CENVAT Credit reversed equivalent to the credit taken on the inputs cleared as such by the appellants is correct or otherwise. In the instant case, the appellants reversed the amount equal to the credit availed on the inputs removed as such during the period fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vailed in respect of such inputs and accordingly the appellants paid/reversed the amount equal to the credit availed by them on the inputs at the time of removal as such. It is pertinent to mention here that similar issue has already been decided by the Tribunal-Larger Bench in the case of Eicher Tractors Vs CCE Jaipur 2005 (189) ELT 131 (Tri-LB), and the same is squarely applicable in the instant case. I also rely on the CESTAT decision in the case of Eicher Tractors Vs CCE Jaipur 2004 (175) ELT 277 (Tri-Del.), in which it has been held as under: The Modvat/Cenvat is a scheme of giving relief, while subjecting final products to duty, equivalent to the duty paid on the inputs. That is not a provision for levying duty on goods which had on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... versal of the amount equal to the credit availed on such inputs. Thus, there does not appear any suppression or willful mis-statement on their part and hence the show cause notice is time barred. 7. We find that the first appellate authority has correctly followed the law as has been laid down by Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Eicher Tractors (supra). The said ratio of the law is as under: 6. It is seen that the Board vide its circular dated 25-4-2005 has categorically said that clarifications given in this Circular supersede the earlier Circular dated 1-7-2002. The revenue cannot argue against its own Circular, when the Board has stated that the provisions of the Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
