9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r exports - the impugned order has been passed on the basis of N/N. 30/2004 wherein there is a restriction on availment of cenvat credit on inputs or capital goods but subsequently vide corrigendum 334/3/2004 dated 09.07.2004, the corrigendum was issued by which the restriction was only on inputs and not on capital goods which means that the cenvat credit on capital goods is permissible under the said notification - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1568/2011-SM - Final Order No. 20423/ 2017 - Dated:- 27-3-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri T.R. Rajesh Kumar, CA For the Appellant Shri Parashiva Murthy, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it on the balance credit of capital goods after being opted out from the cenvat scheme and also for irregular utilization of ₹ 68,132/- (Rupees Sixty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Thirty Two only) towards payment of duty for removal of inputs as such. Interest and penalty was also proposed in the show-cause notice. Thereafter after following the due process, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 2,65,203/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand Two Hundred and Three only) being wrongly availed and utilized and also demanded ₹ 68,132/- (Rupees Sixty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Thirty Two only) wrongly utilized cenvat credit towards payment of duty and also imposed equal penalty under Section 11AC. Aggrieve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gendum F. No. 334/3/2004-TRU dated 09.07.2004 which made a correction in the said notification as for inputs or capital goods read inputs . Therefore according to the consultant there is no restriction for availing credit on the capital goods even though the appellant is availing the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-CE. He further submitted that this aspect was brought to the notice of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) but the impugned order has failed to consider the same and in the absence of considering the corrigendum, the impugned order has been passed which requires to be set aside. He further submitted that under Notification No. 30/2004, there is no provision for lapsing of credit. Even when the goods in question were being expo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f inputs removed as such which is well within the law and the appellant has acted accordingly and the allegation of improper utilization is wrong. The learned consultant has also raised the issue of time-bar. He further submits that the appellant had a bona fide belief on the basis of the notification that they are entitled to avail the credit which they have availed and utilized and since they had a bona fide belief, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. He further submitted that when the demand is not sustainable, there is no question of paying interest and penalty. 4. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
