9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Education Cess. Accordingly, the appellant were availing the benefit of cenvat credit of both types of cess paid on the raw material and was utilising the same for payment of cess on their final product. Inasmuch as the cross utilisation of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess towards payment of basic duty of excise was not permissible in terms of provisions of Rule 3(7)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the credit of the said two types of Cesses was being utilised only for payment of cess leviable on their final product. 2. With effect from 01.03.2015, in terms of two Notification No. 14/2015-CE as also Notification No. 15/2015-CE, the goods were exempted from payment of both types of Cess. The appellant was having a bala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clarified in the instruction F. No. 96/85/2015-CX-1 dated 07.12.2015 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) wherein it has been clarified that "Issue: Exemption from levy of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess has been provided w.e.f. 1.3.2015 vide notification no. 14/2015-CE & 15/2015-CE both dated 1.3.2015, sub-rule 7(b) of Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, specifies that CENVAT credit CENVAT credit of specified duties shall be utilised for payment of those specified duties only. CENVAT credit of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess can be utilised only for payment of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess, respectively. Consequent upon grant of exemption there is issue o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise Duty. The appellant have categorically pleaded before the Adjudicating Authority that they have sufficient balance in their Cenvat Credit A/c to cover up the duty of Rs. 1,27,818/-. Looking at the fact that this pleading of appellant is undisputed, the matter is related to the interpretation of law, and nothing has been suppressed by the appellant with intention to evade the duty, I hold that no interest is payable by them and no penalty is imposable upon them. The impugned order-in-original is modified to this extent." Hence, the present appeal. 5. After hearing both sides duly represented by Sh. R. S. Sharma, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Sh. P. Juneja, ld. AR for the Revenue I find that an identical issue stands considered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts by the decision in Eicher Motors Limited and Another (supra) Samtel India Limited (supra). The said decisions are distinguishable and inapplicable." 6. Though, the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant fairly agrees that an identical issue was decided against the assessee by the Hon'ble High Court vide above referred order but submits that the same is distinguishable inasmuch as the issue before the High Court was in respect of services whereas the issue in the present case is in respect of goods. He also submits that in the Notification No. 22/2015-CE the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, Rule 3(7)(b) was "inserted" whereas vide Notification No. 12/2015, Rule 3(7)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rule was "substituted". As such, he submits that the u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
