9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t appropriate to disallow the Cenvat benefit, to which the respondent is statutorily entitled to. Therefore, there is no impediment in the appellant taking suo motto credit of ₹ 18,95,888/-. - Decided in favour of appellant - Appeal No. E/27612/2013 - - - Dated:- 25-2-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member(Judicial) Shri Lalit Mohan Chandana, Advocate for the appellant Shri S.L. Karalia, Authorised representative for the respondent ORDER [ Order per Sulekha Beevi, C. S. ] The appellants are engaged in manufacture of sponge iron, MS ingots, TMT bars and are availing the facility of CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods. During the period February 2008 to December 2008, the appellants supplied goods to units ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the clearances made to SEZ is not sustainable. 4. Meanwhile, the appellant took recredit of the amount of ₹ 18,95,888/- (Rs.18,40,670/- towards BED + education cess ₹ 36,813/- + Secondary Higher Education cess ₹ 18,405/- = ₹ 18,95,888/-) and informed the same to Superintendent vide letter dated 10/08/2009. They explained in the letter that the department having not accepted the reversal of credit made by the appellants by issuing notice and confirming the demand for payment of 10% of the value of the goods on the same allegation of non-admissibility of credit as the goods were supplied to SEZ developers, the appellant has taken recredit of the amount which was reversed earlier for the same cause. That there can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under protest earlier only due to pressure from the department. In spite of this reversal, alleging inadmissibility of the same credit, department issued show-cause notice demanding 10% of the value of goods. Only after such notice, appellants took recredit of ₹ 18,95,888/- as there was a demand raised by department in respect of the same credit. He contended that taking recredit of the same amount was only an adjustment made by appellant because the department had raised demand / issued show-cause notice with respect to the same credit claiming 10% of value of goods. The demand was confirmed by original authority and Commissioner(Appeals). But later set aside by Tribunal. That therefore the adjustment made by re-credit in CENVAT acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Vadodara-1 [2013(291) ELT 70 (Tri. Ahmd.)] and in the case of Push Enterprises Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I [2015(322) ELT 728 (Tri. Del.)] held that credit taken suo motto for such adjustment is admissible. The issue stands covered by the judgments laid in Stumpp, Schedule Somappa (P) Ltd. case (supra) and KMC Corporation Ltd. case (supra). The Tribunal in the case of Stumpp, Schedule Somappa case has distinguished the ratio laid in the case of BDH Industries. Following the dictum laid in the above judgments, the issue being same and facts being similar, I hold that in the said circumstances, there is no impediment in the appellant taking suo motto credit of ₹ 18,95,888/-. 11. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order is set aside. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
