Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (6) TMI 854

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 45/- availed and utilised by the appellant in 2007-08 is not bound by law and is liable to be demanded and the interest demanded and penalty imposed are also in order - demand upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/22816/2014-SM - 20912/2017 - Dated:- 15-6-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member G. Jayaprakash, Advocate For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 22.5.2014 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... est under Section 75 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) and the Commissioner (A) vide the impugned order has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that the CENVAT Credit Rules does not stipulate any time limit for availing CENVAT credit and the CENVAT credit balance is vested right of an assessee and nobody can divest that right without the authority of law. He further submitted that Rule 11(2) of CCR, 2004 applies to a manufacturer who has been paying excise duty and taking CENVAT credit and then opts for SSI e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... T credit lying unavailed and unutilised in 2005-06 in 2007-08 after opting for full exemption under Notification No.8/2003 dated 1.3.2003 as amended in 2006-07. The contention of the appellant that Rule 11(2) of CCR, 2004 is not applicable to them is not correct. Rule 11(2) of CCR, 2004 states that: A manufacturer who opts for exemption from the whole of the duty of excise leviable on goods manufactured by him under a Notification based on the value or quantity of clearances in a financial year, and who has been taking CENVAT credit on inputs or input services before such option is exercised, shall be required to pay an amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit, if any, allowed to him in respect of inputs lying in stock or in process or cont .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates