9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... & Haryana in the case of CCE vs. Punjab Steels-[2010 (7) TMI 252 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] wherein it has been held that Rule 3(5) of the Rules only talks about the Cenvat credit taken on inputs or capital goods. It does not refer to the Cenvat on input service. Hon’ble High Court further observed that it is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose of the statute more than what is stated in the plain language - once there is no legal provision requiring reversal of credit in respect of input service credit, there is no authority to take back such input service tax credit. - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No.E/4090/2012 - FINAL ORDER No.53213/2014 - Dated:- 6-6-2014 - Manmohan Singh, J. For the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me comes to ₹ 9,13,273/- (including cess). Rule 9(5) entrusts the responsibility on the manufacturer to take reasonable steps for correctly availing the credit on inputs. As per Rule 12 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 every assessee is required to submit a monthly return in the form specified by notification or by Board in regard to production and removal of goods and other relevant particulars, within ten days after the close of the month of which return relates. The appellant had shown as such removal in their monthly returns. 3. The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur disallowed cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 9,13,273/- and ordered to recover the said amount with interest from the assessee under Rule 14 of Cenvat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of J.S.Khalsa Steels (P) Ltd. Versus CCE, Chandigarh-2010 (17) STR 517 and Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana in the case of CCE vs. Punjab Steels-2010 (260) ELT 521 (P H) wherein it has been held that Rule 3(5) of the Rules only talks about the Cenvat credit taken on inputs or capital goods. It does not refer to the Cenvat on input service. Hon ble High Court further observed that it is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose of the statute more than what is stated in the plain language. Words cannot be added or substituted so as to give a particular meaning. 7. Para 10 of the judgement of Hon ble High Court reads as under: 10. Be that as it may, however, still even on merits, this court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... servations of a Constitution Bench of Hon ble the Supreme Court in Mathuram Agrwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1999) 8 SCC 667 : The intention of the legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a taxing Act it is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose of the statute more than what is stated in the plain language. It is not the economic results sought to be obtained by making the provision which is relevant in interpreting a fiscal statute. Equally impermissible is an interpretation which does not follow from the plain, unambiguous language of the statute. Words cannot be added to or substituted so as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
