9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 910X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e into effect, there was no provision for reversal of credit in respect of inputs contained in the said exempted goods or lying as such for the reason that credit was availed prior to issuance of the exemption notification and at the time of availment of credit there was no bar and the CENVAT credit availed was correct and legal - the Appellants are entitled for the refund of the cenvat credit lying in their books. Time limitation - Held that:- no findings has been given by the Appellate Authority on the issue of time bar - it is appropriate to remand back both the appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) to look into the aspect of time bar and decide the appeals accordingly. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. E/210 & 219/200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time limit of one year as prescribed in Section 11B. The adjudicating authority thus rejected the claim. The Appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the impugned orders. Hence the present appeals. 3. We have heard ld. Counsel Shri Prakash Shah who submitted that Rule 11 of CCR, 2004 has no application as it came into effect on 01.03.2007 whereas the credit was lying in their books before 09.07.2004. He also submits that the credit availed by them was also not liable to be reversed. He relies upon Tribunal order in case of Raymond Ltd., Final Order No. A/613-614/11/EB/C-II, Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills 2017 (345) ELT 310 (TRI), Computer Graphics Ltd. 2016 (8) TMI 1100 CESTAT Chennai and Hon ble High Court j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CE dt. 09.07.2004. The Appellant thus became entitled for the refund of said credit lying unutilized. The issue on merits already stands decided by us in case of Suryalaxmi Cotton Mills 2017 (345) ELT 310 (TRI). The findings are as under : The issue involved in the present case is that, due to the excisable goods become exempted, the appellant reversed Cenvat credit contained in the finished goods in process and final product. Part of the credit was reversed from Cenvat credit account and partly from PLA. Subsequently the appellant realized that Cenvat credit was not required to be reversed, they filed refund claim for an amount of ` 32,88,680/- and the same was rejected by the adjudicating authority vide order-in-original dated 26-4- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provision for reversal of Cenvat credit in respect of the goods lying in stock with respect to the inputs contained in the finished goods and the provision was brought in the statute by insertion of sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 of Cenvat Credit Rules w.e.f. 1-3-2007 by way of amendment Notification No. 10/2007-C.E. (N.T.). Therefore, at the relevant period, in the present case, there was no provision for reversal of credit in case the products become exempted. He submitted that the very same issue has been settled in the following judgments. i. Tractor and Farm Equipment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai-II - 2015 (320) E.L.T. 357 (Mad.) ii. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. TAFE Ltd. (Tractor Division ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
