9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cenvat credit attributable to exempted goods is reversed, that fulfills the requirements of Rule 6(3) - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/450/2012 - Final Order No. 60603/2017 - Dated:- 7-4-2017 - Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri Amrinder Singh, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Satya Pal, A.R. for the Respondent ORDER Per Devender Singh The appellant has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 452/BK/GGN/11 dated 31.10.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-III, Gurgaon. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper-board of different types falling under Chapter 48 of the Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that in the context of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the aforesaid amendment has been held to be retrospective. The Ld. Advocate further submits that they have already reversed the Cenvat Credit attributable to the exempted goods for the month of April 2008 and 10% of the value exempted goods for the month of March 2008. Ld. Advocate further argues that this Tribunal in the judgments of the cases CCE vs. Ludhiana Beverages (P) Ltd vide Final Order No. A/61681/2016-SM[BR] dated 18.11.2016; CCE vs. Ludhiana Beverages (P) Ltd vide Final Order No. A/61480/2016-EX[DB] dated 26.09.2016; and Saint-Gobain Gyproc India Ltd. vs. CCE, Rohtak vide Final Order No. A/60162-60163/2017 dated 18.01.2017 has held that when the cenvat credit attri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a law which merely alters the procedure may with perfect propriety be made applicable to past as well as future transactions. We agree that the Rule 6(3A) is not a substantive provision but procedural provision. Hence we are of the view that it would be having a retrospective effect. In these circumstances, the levy of penalty is not at all justified. 6.2 Both the case laws relied upon by the Ld. AR. for the procedural requirements pertain to benefit of Notification, which undoubtedly is at a different footing than Cenvat Credit Rules. Hence the same are not applicable. Ld. Advocate also submits that they have already reversed the cenvat credit attributable to the exempted goods and for the month of March, 2008, they have paid 10% of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
