9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1983X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no application for adjournment. 3. After hearing the learned Authorised Representative and on perusal of the records, we find that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of Stainless Steel Pipes (Welded and Seamless) and Carbon Steel Pipes (Saw Pipes and ERW pipes) classifiable under Chapter 73 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Their unit was setup in the Kutch district of Gujarat after 31.07.2001 and availing the benefit of Notification No. 39/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001. Respondent filed three separate applications for re-credit of the amount in their PLA paid by cash in respect of the goods cleared during three months from July 2006 to September 2006. The adjudicating authority partly allowed the refund claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration for payment of duty on goods cleared during such month and pays only the balance amount in cash." We find that the benefit of exemption notification would be extended on the condition that manufacturer first utilise the whole of credit available to them and pays only balance amount by cash, which is refundable. In the instant case, according to the adjudicating authority, the Respondent is not eligible to utilise the CENVAT credit for payment of GTA services for outward transportation services. We find, this issue is no more res-integra in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE & Cus. vs. Parle Products Pvt. Limited 2010 (258) ELT 485 (Guj.). The other issue is that the adjudicating auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilisation of Cenvat credit would have been initiation of proceedings under the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. I find that the notification does not lays any condition whereby for the sake of wrong utilisation of Cenvat credit, the amount paid from PLA is restricted from being re-credited. I further find that, the lower authority in his re-credit order No. 39/2006-07 has also deducted the claim of the appellant to the extent of Rs. 1,616/- which was stated to be over-payment through PLA and not refundable under the notification. This finding of the lower authority also appears to be incorrect in as much as the notification allows the manufacturer, on exercising his option, to take credit of the am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
