9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SM, E/21193/2015-SM, E/23718/2014-SM - Final Order No. 20472-20474/2017 - Dated:- 6-4-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Rajesh Kumar T.R. C.A. For the Appellant Dr EZHIL MATHI,A.R. - For the Respondent ORDER These three appeals have been filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 29.9.2014 and 27.2.2015 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. Since the issue involved in all the three appeals is identical therefore all the three appeals are being disposed by the common order. For the sake of convenience the facts of Appeal No. 23718/2014 are taken. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of parts of electrical switches and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the only issue to be decided in the present case is whether CVD mentioned in the formula contained in Rule 3(7) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 includes only the basic excise duty leviable under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 or it also includes cesses on CVD and the special CVD leviable under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 and whether the extended period of limitation can be invoked. He further submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is no more resintegra and has been settled in favour of the appellant by the following decisions: 1) CCE Vs H.K. Moulders [2011(268)ELT 43(Guj)] 2) Sri Venkateshwara Precision Components Vs CCE Chennai [2010(258)ELT 553(Tri-Che] 3) Emcure Pha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the records and the provisions contained in Rule 3(7) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and the various decisions relied upon by the appellant, I am of the view that the case of the appellant is squarely covered by the decisions cited supra. Further, I find that in the case of Metaclad Industries cited supra, the Tribunal in para 5.4 and 5.5 has clearly held that the amendment made in the said Rule in 2009 is only for the purpose of removal of doubt and not for any other reason and the said clarification is applicable retrospectively. Para 5.4 and 5.5 are reproduced herein. 5.4 The clarification/amendment made in the said Rule in 2009 is only for the purpose of removal of doubts and not for any other reason. Therefore, the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
