9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... based on which, the assessee issued a letter dated 25th April, 2005 indicating its intention to again make the reversal of its Cenvat credit entries and also enclosing the original invoice bills. - show cause notice was wrongly issued on a wrong premise that no permission was taken or that original documents were not filed. In fact, we find that the appellant had not only intimated the department about its intention but also had filed the necessary documents. The letter indicated the details of the description of the goods, the invoice bills and the credit to be taken. This was in consonance with the provisions of Rule 9. If the authority had any objection they should have immediately asked the appellant for further clarifications, which i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit afresh but also enclosed the original copy of the invoice bills. The list indicating the details of the description of inputs, invoice number and date and details of credit taken on each invoice bill was also filed. No orders were passed and, accordingly, the assessee made a reversal of the entries to the tune of ₹ 3,02,969/- and indicated reversal on their registers, namely, RG23A. Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 27th October, 2005 was issued alleging that credit of ₹ 2,63,446/- in their Cenvat account had again been taken without any refund order or permission from the proper authority and without proper documents as required under Rule 9 of the Rules of 2004 and such credit being taken without any order under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lating to confiscation and penalty and the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was not legally justified in upholding the applicability of the same? 2. Whether, in view of the fact that the admissibility of Cenvat Credit of ₹ 2,63,466/- on account of use of furnace oil as input in manufacture of Brake Shoe Casting having not been disputed by the lower authorities, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in upholding the order of the lower authority demanding an amount of ₹ 2,63,466/- and interest thereon? After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the question of law is required to be modified as under:- Whether the appellant was entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the department about its intention but also had filed the necessary documents. The letter indicated the details of the description of the goods, the invoice bills and the credit to be taken. This was in consonance with the provisions of Rule 9. If the authority had any objection they should have immediately asked the appellant for further clarifications, which in the instant case was not done. The contention of the respondent that an application for refund of duty was required to be made under Section 11B of the Act does not hold water. It is not a case of refund of duty but a case of reversal of an entry in the books relating to Cenvat credit. We find support on this aspect of a judgment of the Madras High Court in ICMC Corporation L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
