9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dment and thus the law as it existed at the time when they converted the duty paid by them into cenvat credit would be the law applicable to the said credit, since at the time of availing cenvat credit, sub-rule (d) of Rule 7 and Explanation 3 of the said rule was in existence at the time of availing credit. Uni Deritend Ltd. was required to follow the same and avail the credit only in terms of Rule 7(d) read with Explanation 3 - demand of reversal of credit upheld. Penalty - Held that: - since the demand of duty under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is upheld, the assessee is liable to mandatory penal provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - penalty upheld. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the credit accrued to them prior to the amendment to Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, they could have distributed the credit as per the said rules as it existed prior to the said amendment. 3.1 He further argued that it was the revenue neutral situation and there could not have been any intention to evade duty. He argued that the entire credit was available to three units of the appellant and thus by availing credit in just one unit, the appellant could not have gained anything. 3.2 He took me through the invoices on which the said credit has been availed. The invoices produced by him showed that the same has been raised in the year 2011 and early 2012. However, there was no verification of the date of payment for the said services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l time was very clear and there was no scope for interpretation. In these circumstances, Uni Deritend Ltd. should have followed the law and not given their own interpretation to the same. 5. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that the primary argument of Uni Deritend Ltd. is that the credit was available to them prior to amendment in Rule 7(d) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and therefore they cannot be asked to follow the said Rule 7(d). In this regard, they have relied on Section 38A of the Central Excise Act and the decision of the Apex Court in Eicher Motors Ltd. (supra). 6. Sub-rule (d) and Explanation 3 to the said sub-rule was inserted in Cenvat Credit Rules on 1.4.2014. The said sub-rule reads as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as cenvat credit. The claim of Uni Deritend Ltd. that as soon as they paid the duty, the same became credit in their account is misplaced. To convert any duty paid into cenvat credit, it has to be claimed in their account and retures as cenvat credit. In the instant case, while the invoices were raised prior to the amendment, there is no evidence if the payment was made prior to the amendment. Thus if the credit was available prior to the amendment is also a doubtful proposition. In any case Uni Deritend Ltd. has availed the credit of duty paid by them after the amendment and thus the law as it existed at the time when they converted the duty paid by them into cenvat credit would be the law applicable to the said credit, since at the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
