9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of opting out of cenvat credit scheme - there is no requirement for the appellants to pay the balance amount in cash. Consequently, they will be entitled to the refund of such amount, if already paid - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No.2349-2354 of 2008 - A/50272-50277/2018-EX[DB] - Dated:- 10-1-2018 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri O P Agarwal, Consultant - for the Appellants Shri R K Mishra, AR - for the Respondent ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan The present appeals are filed against Order-in-Appeal Nos.107-116/DK/CE/JPR-II/2008 dated 22.08.2008. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit Rules, 2004. This Rule is applicable to a manufacturer who opts for exemption from whole of the duty of excise leviable on goods manufactured under a Notification based on value or quantity of clearances in a financial year and who has been availing the cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs before such option is exercised. He shall be required to pay an amount equal to credit allowed to him in respect of inputs lying in stock or in process or contained in the final products lying in stock on the date when such an option is exercised. Rule further specifies that after deducting the said amount from the balance lying in credit, the balance, if any, still remaining shall lapse. In the present case, in respect of these manufacturers the cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the credit of duty paid on inputs cannot be confined to a particular raw material to which the credit is related and out of which a final product is manufactured. Therefore, it has been rightly held that the assessee-respondent were not required to reverse the Cenvat credit of ₹ 88,731/- The judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Dai Ichi Karkaria case has been correctly applied. There is thus no merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed. 7. We also note that similar case has also came up before the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonalac Paints Coatings Ltd. Vs. CCE [2015 (319) ELT 229 (SC)] where the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:- 9. After discussing this Rule and interpr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods lying in stock on the date when option to avail exemption of duty was exercised and after deducting the said amount from the balance, if any, lying in his credit, the balance, if any, still remaining was to lapse and was not to be utilized for payment of duty on any excisable goods. 4.8 The text of Rule 57AG(2) is clear and credit attributable to inputs as such or contained in finished goods was to be debited only if there was balance in the Modvat credit amount. If there was no balance no debit was required to be made. Neither Rule 57AF nor any other rule or notification lays down that in the event of non-debiting of aforesaid amount the benefit available under Notification No.8/2000 shall be denied. There is no averment in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
