9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tariff Act, 1985. Appellant availed exemption under Notification No.8/2003 dated 1.3.2003. During the month of July 2005, appellants crossed value based exemption limit and started paying full rate of duty and also started availing credit of duty paid on inputs. On verification of the ER-3 Returns, department observed that during the month of August 2005, they have taken credit of duty received and used in the manufacture of final products during the year 2004-05 with a remark that these credit were not taken at the relevant period. Show-cause notice was issued proposing to demand and recovery wrongly taken CENVAT credit along with interest and also proposed imposition of penalties. The adjudicating authority disallowed and demanded credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1 He also submitted that the appellant took the credit when the final product was dutiable and the eligible credit is indefeasible and the appellant is entitled to utilize the same at any time while marketing payment of duty. In support of this submission, he relied upon the CCE, Pune Vs. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd: 1999 (112) ELT 353 (SC). 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the impugned order has been rightly passed by the Commissioner (A) after considering the provisions of Rule 11(2) of CCR, 2004. Learned AR further submitted that this Tribunal vide Final Order No.20912/2017 dated 15.6.2017 in the case of M/s. Glass and Glazing Systems Pvt. Ltd. dismissed the appeal of the assessee on identic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not take credit during 2004-05 by oversight and that availment of same during 2005-06 does not hurt interest of revenue inasmuch as they could have used this credit for paying duty during previous year, is not acceptable. It also follows that had they taken the credit during 2004-05 and had failed to use it, it would have lapsed on 31.3.2005. Their argument is contrary to the provision of Rule 11(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which requires any credit remaining in balance to lapse once an option is made for availing SSI exemption for a financial year. The appellants have also argued that there is no time limit for taking CENVAT credit. I find that this right of the appellants can be allowed to be exercised to the extent such exercise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
