9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inery provision was brought. Therefore, the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is absolutely correct - credit remains allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against revenue. - E/942/07 - A/86668/17-SMB - Dated:- 7-4-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) for the appellant Shri D.H. Nadkarni, Advocate (AR) for the respondent ORDER The fact of the case is that the respondent during the years 2000-01 to 2004-05 availing SSI exemption under notification 8/2000-CE dated 01.03.2000 and notification 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 and were not paying the excise duty upto the first clearances of the aggregate value of ₹ 50 lakhs in the year 2000-01 and up to ₹ 1 crore in the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. However, the Commissioner (Appeals), in an appeal filed by the respondent, dropped the demand by allowing their appeal. Therefore, the revenue is before me. 2. Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) appearing for the revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal. He further submits that in terms of Rule 57AG, Rule 9(2) it is clear that assessee who opts for value based exemption is required to reverse the credit on the inputs as such and /or input contained in the finished goods lying in stock as on date of exercising the option of exemption. Therefore, it is mandatory requirement for reversal of the credit. He places reliance on the following decisions:- CCE vs. National Tobacco Co. o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covery of the amount which is required to be paid in terms of Rule 57CC. However, in the present case reversal of credit is provided under Rule 57AG(2), Rule 9(2) and Rule 11(2). But in relation to the payment provided under these rules, there was no machinery provision for recovery of the said amount even subsequently also unlike rule 57CC no retrospective provision was brought in the statute. Considering this position, the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand by allowing the appeal of the respondent. It can be seen that the ld. Commissioner has made a clear distinction that wherein the government intend to even bring a machinery provision from retrospective effect it was done so in case of Section 11D and Rule 57CC. However, in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
