9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004, a Show Cause Notice dated 06.05.2013 was issued by the Original Authority since the appellant appeared to have cleared the final products on payment of duty under Notification No. 29/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 as well as without payment of duty under Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004; that the appellants have availed common input/input service Credit; that they have not exercised their option as per the requirements of Rule 6(3A) of CCR, 2004 and that therefore, they are liable to pay an amount equivalent to 5%/10% of the value of exempted goods cleared during the period from 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2010 in terms of Rule 6(3)(i) ibid, etc. The impugned Order came to be passed after considering the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are not mandatory but procedural; a lapse in not following the procedure is condonable and the denial of a substantial benefit for non-compliance of the procedure is unjustified. He placed reliance on a recent Order of this very Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Castrol India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai - 2018 (7) T.M.I. 315 - CESTAT Chennai. 5. Per contra, Ld. AR supported the findings of the lower authorities. 6. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the documents placed on record and have also gone through the judgements/Orders referred to during the course of arguments. 7. We find that the issue of applicability of Rule 6(3)/6(3A) has already been discussed by this Bench in the case of Castrol India L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive right given in the said Rule cannot be denied for such procedural lapse. The Tribunal has also held that Commissioner cannot insist that assessee should reverse only as per Rule 6(3)(i) but it is the option of the assessee. Tribunal in that case held that as follows: "5.3 As regard the contention of the adjudicating authority that this option should be given in beginning and before exercising such option, we are of the view that though there is no such time limit provided for exercising such option in the rules but it is a common sense that intention of any option should be expressed before exercising the option, however the delay can be taken as procedural lapse. We also note that trading of goods was considered as exempted service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he original authority to carry out verification." 7. Similar view has been taken in all the cases relied by the Ld.Counsel for appellant. Following the same, we are of the considered opinion that the demand cannot sustain and requires to be set aside which we hereby do. The appeal succeeds on merits. 8. The Ld. Counsel has also argued on the ground of limitation. The appellants have been issued show cause notices for earlier periods on identical issue. The appellants have disclosed the credit availed in the returns filed by them. They had submitted all the documents called for by the department and we do not find any evidence to saddle the appellants with wilful suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of duty. In para 2.12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
