9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trospective amendment, it was entitled to reverse proportionate Cenvat Credit - The option of paying an amount equal to 10% sale value of exempted goods, therefore, could not have been enforced on the assessee - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Central Excise Appeal No. 112 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 20-2-2017 - S. C. Dharmadhikari And B. P. Colabawalla, JJ. Mr. M. Dwivedi i/b. Ms. Shalaka Gujar for the Appellant Mr. Jitendra Motwani a/w Mr. Chirag Shetty i/b. Mr. Madhur R. Baya for the Respondent ORDER P. C. 1. The appellants are aggrieved and dissatisfied with an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Its West Zonal Bench has allowed a statutory appeal on 29th July, 2005. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand amount based on 8% of the sale price of exempted goods on the grounds that they have reversed the Cenvat credit? 2. The respondent assessee holds a Central Excise Registration for manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter Nos. 15, 28 and 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondent assessee is also availing a Cenvat Credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods received in the factory under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The respondent-assessee received certain inputs from 1st January 2003 to 23rd April 2003 and had availed the Cenvat Credit of the duty paid on the said inputs. This Cenvat credit amounts to ₹ 1,40,723.50/and in that period, an amount of duty was paid with respect to some other input, deta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arch, 2002. Rule 6 was amended and is deemed to have been amended retrospectively, in the manner provided in column (3) of the Seventh Schedule, on and from and up to the corresponding date specified in column (4) of that Schedule, against the rule specified in column (2) of that Schedule. The amendment, therefore, enables the dealer to make these adjustments. The respondent-assessee, even if it had failed to maintain a separate account in view of the retrospective amendment, it was entitled to reverse proportionate Cenvat Credit. The option of paying an amount equal to 10% sale value of exempted goods, therefore, could not have been enforced on the assessee. That is how consistently even the Tribunals and the High Courts namely, the High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
