9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .) dated 15th September, 2003, are not retrospective and/or clarificatory in nature? - substantial question of law. Held that:- The Notification No.70/2003 very clearly makes it effective only from 15th September, 2003. Thus, it is prospective. Further, the Circular No.755 dated 13th October, 2003 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs also does not state that it is clarificatory or for removal of doubts. Thus, its benefit cannot be extended to availment of credit prior to 15th September, 2003 - the above-mentioned two questions, do not give rise to any substantial question of law in view of self evident position - the questions not admitted for consideration. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lding that the amendment made to Rule 4(2)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002 by the Cenvat Credit (18th Amendment Rules 2003) i.e. Notification No.70 of 2003 Central Excise (M.T.) dated 15th September, 2003, are not retrospective and/or clarificatory in nature? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the penalty of ₹ 2,00,000/under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2005? 3. The Appellants are manufacturer of M.S. Ingots, falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tribunal Act, 1985. The Appellant avails Cenvat Credit facilities on inputs and capital goods. During the year 2001-02, the Appellant procured CI Moulds (capital goods) and availed Cenvat Credit of 50% o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edent for availing of 50% of Cenvat Credit of the duty paid thereon in terms of Rule 4(2)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002. The penalty of ₹ 20,000/under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002 was left undisturbed. 8. The Appellant filed a further appeal to the Tribunal. By the impugned order dated 13th May, 2015, the appeal was dismissed. This by holding that the amendment to Rule 4(2)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002 was prospective w.e.f. the issue of Notification No.70/2003 (M.T.) Central Excise dated 15th September, 2003. It is only by virtue of the amendment that moulds were added to re-factory materials as being excluded from the requirement of possession and use of capital goods in the subsequent year to avail of 50% o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention was urged on behalf of the Appellants-Assessee therein, was rejected. Aggrieved by the above order of the Tribunal, M/s. Sri Krishna Alloys (supra) had preferred an Appeal to the High Court of Madras and the appeal of Sri Krishnan Alloys (supra) was reported as Sri Krishnan Alloys v/s. CESTAT 344 ELT 645. Thus, the issue raised herein stands concluded by the decision of the Madras High Court in favour of the Revenue. (iv) We note that the submission of Mr. Singh in support of the Appeal, are identical to one which were subject matter of consideration before the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Sri Krishan Alloys (supra) which view was upheld by the Madras High Court in Appeal filed by M/s. Sri Krishna Alloys (supra). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
