9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MUMBAI], where it was held that Availing of cenvat credit on the amounts settled before the Settlement Commission is not barred by any provision of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/1073/2009 - A/31217/2018 - Dated:- 10-9-2018 - Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And Mr. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri S Sunil, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Guna Ranjan, Superintendent /AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: Mr. M.V. Ravindran 1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 80/2009 (H-1) CE, dated 28.08.2009. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration after filtering out unnecessary details are the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law, did not accept the contentions raised by the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. Hence this appeal. 3. Ld. Counsel after giving overall view of the litigation initiated by the departmental proceedings in the show cause notice issued by DRI, submits that only reasoning of the lower authorities for denying the CENVAT credit of the CVD paid on the amounts settled before the Settlement Commission is that the said amount has to be considered as amount paid in settling the issue and cannot be considered as eligible for availment of CENVAT credit. Subsequently he draws our attention to the provisions of Rule 3 and Rule 4 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and submits that the said rules do not contemplate for denying the CENVAT credit t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the appellant had availed the CENVAT credit no documents were available and had availed the credit on TR6 challans which is incorrect. He relies upon the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India [2010 (251)E.L.T 3 (S.C.)] for the proposition that appellant cannot resile from his pleadings before the Settlement Commission and can not wake up now with new point for the issue already settled before the Settlement Commission and hence CENVAT Credit availed is correctly denied. He would submit that the decision of the Settlement Commission has attained the finality and hence the stand taken by the appellant before the Tribunal in availing the CENVAT Credit is amounting to seeking reopen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that similar issue was decided by the Tribunal in the case of Shreem Capacitors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) (wherein one of us Shri M.V. Ravindran was also a Member). The order of the Tribunal being directly on the point, is reproduced in its entirety. This appeal is directed against Order-in- Appeal No. PII/BKS/275/2005 dated 24.06.2005. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding the allegation that the respondent are not entitled to the cenvat credit as the same has been taken on countervailing duty which became recoverable by allegation of fraud, mis-statement or suppression of fact etc. The respondent herein were importing various goods and clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suppression of fact and hence credit is deniable. It is his submission that the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Indorama Synthetics (India) Ltd. vs. UOI 2013 (290) ELT 208 is applicable as in that case the Hon'ble High Court has settled the law as to what is the effect of order of Settlement Commission. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Larger Bench Tribunal in Bosch Chassis Systems India Ltd. 2008 (232) ELT 622 for the same proposition. 5. Ld. counsel would submit that the Larger Bench decision relied upon by the departmental authorities is in fact supporting his case. He would submit that reliance is placed on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2011 (274) ELT 561 for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
