9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t also undertakes the activity of job work of manufacture of the said final product out of the input i.e. C.R. Coils supplied by the Principal Manufacturer. On receipt of C.R. Coils from the supplier, the appellant avails cenvat credit of Central Excise duty indicated in the invoices issued by them. The appellant also avails cenvat credit on the said C.R. Coils procured from the domestic market. With regard to manufacture of M.S. Pipes on job work basis, the appellant avails the duty exemption as provided under Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. With regard to the M.S. pipes removed from the factory to the independent buyers, the appellant pays appropriate Central Excise duty, by utilizing the cenvat credit available in the books of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued in 6.9.2012. According to the Ld. Advocate, since the issue involves interpretation of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the allegation of fraud, collusion, mis-statement etc. cannot be leveled against the appellant. He further submits that the officers of the audit wing of the Department, who visited the factory of the appellant in the month of August, 2011, have also expressed doubt with regard to the issue of reversal of cenvat credit in the situation involved in the present case, and accordingly, referred the matter to the Preventive Wing for necessary investigation. Thus, according to the Ld. Advocate, since the Department was in doubt about applicability of the statutory provisions contained in Rule 6 ibid, the extended per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o reverse the cenvat credit. 4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records. 5. It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant had paid the amount equal to 5% of value of exempted goods cleared by it on job work basis to the principal manufacturer, in terms of Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. Since such option has been exercised by the appellant suo-moto and due intimation regarding such payment has been filed before the Central Excise Department, in my opinion, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for confirmation of the demand, in terms of the proviso to section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further, the issue regarding applicability of the explanation appended to sub-rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
