9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 2006-07. Under challenge is the confirmation of demand of the CENVAT credit availed, along with interest thereon, and the imposition of penalty under rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The claim of the appellant is that they are not manufacturers of 'exempt goods' as they are required to discharge automobile cess and education cess. However, the adjudicating authority has held that this claim is not maintainable as, by their own admission, the appellant had stopped availing CENVAT credit on inputs after insertion of Explanation III in rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 with effect from 16th May 2005 and had reversed the credit of duty availed of inputs till 1 June 2005. 2. Learned Counsel for appellant admits that the goods manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tire Central Excise Act, 1944 by replacing the phrases earlier used in the Act with the words 'Cenvat', and (ii) Not to create any distinction between various phrases used in Central Excise Act, 1944. Thus, it would clearly indicate that there can be no distinction between the phrases 'duty', 'duties', and "duty of excise" and "duties of excise".' when construed harmoniously with the statutory provision supra would exclude them from coverage as manufacturers of 'exempted goods.' 3. Learned Authorised Representative relies upon the letter of appellant referred to in the impugned order admitting to the ineligibility for availment of CENVAT credit from 16th May 2005 with insertion of Explanation III in rule 6 (3) of CENVAT Credit Rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we have no hesitation in respectfully following the earlier decision of the Tribunal in re Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd to hold that the appellant is ineligible to avail CENVAT credit. To consider the cess discharged by the appellant under another law to which CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not apply, or coverage therein by self-inflicted burden of duty, despite escapement under law, would be a construction that negates the entire scheme of CENVAT credit. Accordingly, the erasure of CENVAT credit in the impugned order cannot be faulted. Interest liability in accordance with law, would be applicable. 6. The question that remains to be answered is the liability to penalty under rule 25 and rule 26 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. It is not controver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
