9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9-10. The inventory against which the partial write off was made was available with the appellant and there was no physical removal of the goods. In reply to the show-cause notice also, the appellant has given a detailed chart showing that there was partial write off - The amendment w.e.f 1.3.2011 was not retrospective and it was prospective. Credit need not be reversed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/20973/2018-SM - Final Order No. 21696/2018 - Dated:- 31-10-2018 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. M.S. Nagaraja, Adv For the Appellant Mrs. Kavitha Podwal, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 21.3.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the facts and the law. He further submitted that there was provision for partial write off during the year 2009-10 and there was no obligation to reverse CENVAT credit in case of partial write off of inputs and capital goods during the relevant period and the provision came into force w.e.f 1.3.2011. He further submitted that the findings in the impugned order are contrary to the documents on record whereby it is established that there is only a partial provision to write off. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Sanghavi Engineering vs. CCE, Hyderabad: 2013 (293) ELT 277 (Tri. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the inventory against which the partial write off was made was available with the appellant and there was no physical removal of the goods. In reply to the show-cause notice also, the appellant has given a detailed chart showing that there was partial write off. Further, I find that the Tribunal in the case of Sanghavi Engineering cited supra has held that prior to 1.3.2011, a manufacturer of final product who availed CENVAT credit on inputs was not required to reverse any part of that credit on the ground of a part of the value of inputs being written off in the books of accounts. The amendment w.e.f 1.3.2011 was not retrospective and it was prospective. Therefore, by following the ratio of Sanghi Eng. cited supra, I am of the vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
