9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he reversal of the Cenvat Credit as per Rule 6(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 which was denied by the authorities. 2. The other two appeals nos. E/2297-2298 of 2007 are filed by the Department against the order-in-appeal no. 125-CE/MRT-II/2007 & 124-CE/MRT-II/2007 dated 23.05.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Meerut-II, where the refund claim of the Cenvat Credit was allowed by the authorities. Being aggrieved, both the parties have filed the present appeals. 3. In the appeals, the period in dispute is 30.01.2003 to 23.02.2004 and 28.01.2003 to 27.11.2003 respectively. Since the issue in all the appeals is identical, they are disposed of by this common order for the sake of brevity. ASSESSEE'S APPEALS 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the inputs are received for the manufacturer of a product, on which excise duty is payable, then a valid Cenvat credit is available to a reversing a valid Cenvat credit where subsequently the inputs have been used for manufacture of the same product which has exempted from payment of excise duty by means of a subsequent notification. The reason is clear that there is no provision for reversal of a Cenvat credit. This view of ours is fortified by a decision of the Supreme Court in Dai Ichi Karkaria's case (supra), wherein the Supreme Court, after considering the scheme of the Cenvat Credit Rules, held: "It is clear from these Rules, as we read them, that a manufacturer obtains credit for the Excise duty paid on raw material to be used by h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om payment of excise duty pursuant to a subsequent notification, was not liable to be reversed under Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The question of law is answered accordingly. 8.1 Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd. (supra) agrees with the above view of Hon'ble Uttrakhand High Court in the case of Apco Farm Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the said decision holds that the credit legally taken during relevant time is not liable to be reversed in the circumstances prevalent in the present case. The CESTAT, Delhi in the case of Shri Krishna Paper Mills & Industries Ltd. (supra) also supports the stand of the appellant assessee. The CESTAT, Delhi in the said case observes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicial fora quoted above, the appellant assessee will be entitled to the Cenvat credit availed and credited to their Cenvat credit account prior to 03.02.2007, the day when the assessee opted for benefit of the Notification No. 50/2003 dated 10.06.2003." 7. By following our earlier decision (supra), we find no reason to sustain with the impugned order and the same is hereby set aside. DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL 8. The appeals filed by the Department are related to the refund of the claim which was deposited prior to the passing of the order-in-original, but claimed later. The Commissioner (Appeals) has granted the refund pertaining to the reversal of the Cenvat Credit as per Rule 6(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. 9. As held earlier (supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
