9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he cenvat credit cannot be denied and hence available to the Appellant - in case of bills of entry post 28.01.2004 the cenvat credit is available to the Appellant on merit. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - In case of Bills of entry of period prior to 28.01.2004 we find that the show cause notice does not brings out any malafide intention on the part of the Appellant to avail ineligible credit. Even the issue involved is of interpretation and no malafide can be alleged - the demands for the period prior to 28.01.2004 involving two bills of entry in the present case are hit by limitation and the demand is not sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/150/08 - A/91012/2017 - Dated:- 30-11-2017 - Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that amendment made in EXIM Policy w.e.f 28.01.2004 has no bearing on the cenvat availment as credit is available only when the duty is paid in cash. He thus set aside the adjudication order and confirmed the demand of ₹ 29,98,815/-. Hence the present appeal. 2. Shri Prasad Paranjape Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the Notification No. 28 dt. 28.01.2004 of the EXIM Policy is clarificatory in nature and credit was always available. That even assuming that the notification was prospective in nature, the credit after issue of said notification could not have been denied. The case of the department before Commissioner (Appeals) was that credit allowed prior to 28.01.2004 was not available whereas the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the credit and the revenue had filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) only for the period prior to 28.01.2004 when the Para 4.3.5 was amended. The Appellate Commissioner however passed the order beyond the scope of appeal as he denied credit which was not sought to be denied by the department in their appeal i.e pertaining to period post 28.01.2004 also. Hence the impugned order is not sustainable on said count in case of seven bills of entry which are post 28.01.2004. As regard merits of the case, we find that in case of seven bills of entry pertaining to period post 28.01.2004, there was no restriction in the law to avail the cenvat credit of CVD paid through debit in DEPB. Hence there is no reason to disallow credit for the said pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
