9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit taken by the appellant by intimating the department vide their letter dated 25th April, 2005 was in accordance with the procedure provided under Rule 9 of the Rules of 2004. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/11820/2016 - A/12955/2017 - Dated:- 11-10-2017 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) For the Applicant : Shri V Kansara, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri L Patra, Authorised Reprse ORDER Per : Shri M V Ravindran This appeal is directed against OIA-CCESA-VAD--APP-II-MM-109-2016-17 dt 29/06/2016. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The dispute that arises in this case is regarding the rejection of the claims filed by the appellant for recredit of an amount rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r on 28.9.2005 requesting the Divisional Dy Commissioner to grant the permission to avail credit of the amounts for the period in question. It is noticed from the said letter that the said letter is not seeking any refund of amount paid as duty liability on any goods. The said letter simply seeks only recredit of amount which had been debited under wrong understanding of the law is not challenged by Revenue, as the recredit allowed by adjudicating authority of ₹ 7,50,155/- is on this point only. Law on the subject is very clear that the job workers need not pay/reverse any amount of Cenvat Credit availed on the inputs which are used for job working activity. 6. I find that the contentions of the appellant are fortified by the judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal documents were not filed. In fact, we find that the appellant had not only intimated the department about its intention but also had filed the necessary documents. The letter indicated the details of the description of the goods, the invoice bills and the credit to be taken. This was in consonance with the provisions of Rule 9. If the authority had any objection they should have immediately asked the appellant for further clarifications, which in the instant case was not done. 7. The contention of the respondent that an application for refund of duty was required to be made under Section 11B of the Act does not hold water. It is not a case of refund of duty but a case of reversal of an entry in the books relating to Cenvat credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
