9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Appellant: Mr. K.J. Kinariwala (AR) For Respondent: Mr. Gunjan Shah (Advocate) ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair The issue involved is that whether the appellants are entiled for Cenvat Credit in respect of CVD paid under Notification No. 12/12-Cus dated 17.03.2012 on import of Coal. 2. Shri. S.N. Gohil, Ld. Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He submits that CVD at the rate of 2% paid on import of coal is not admissible as Cenvat Credit, the issue is settled by Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Lonsenkiri Chemicals Industries-2019 (365) E.L.T. 22 (Guj.). 3. On the other hand, Shri. Gunjan Shah, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms Notification No. 12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012, which is clear from the bill of entry. The appellant have not availed Central Excise Notification No. 12/2012-CE, therefore, the restriction provided in Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, is not applicable in the present case as it relates to excise Notification No. 12/2012-CE. Therefore, on the CVD paid under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus, credit is admissible. 3. Ms. Nitina Nagori, ld. Dy. Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, I find that the restriction provided in Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules is as under:- Rule 3. (i) the duty of excise speci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be available to the importer. Therefore, in any case, in the case of import the Notification No. 12/2012-CE is not relevant. 5. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief in accordance with the law. From the above decisions it can be seen that the facts and legal issue involved in the present case is absolutely identical to the above case. As regard, the judgment cited by the Ld. AR in the case of Lonsenkiri Chemicals Industries (Supra), I find that in the said case Cenvat Credit was availed on the CVD paid under the Notification No. 12/12-CE which was barred from availing the Cenvat Credit in terms of Rule 3(1) proviso (a) and (b) whereas in the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
