9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, this amendment is not applicable in the appellant s case - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/20827/2019-SM - Final Order No. 20716/2019 - Dated:- 13-9-2019 - HON'BLE MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. N. Anand, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Rama Holla, Supdt. (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 23.4.2019 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department entertained the view that the appellant is required to reverse the CENVAT credit availed on these inputs in terms of Rule 3(5B), therefore a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant demanding an amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit taken to the tune of ₹ 46.18 lakh along with interest and also proposed penalty. After following the due process, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed equivalent penalty in terms of Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) but the Commissioner (A) rejected the appeal as time bar vide its order dated 13.2.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel argued that the impugned order is contradictory. He further submits that in the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (A) after extracting the provisions of Rule 3(5B) of CCR, 2004 for the period 2007-2011 admitted that provision for reversing credit when value of inputs is partially written down was inserted only with effect from 1.4.2011. He also admits that there was no provision to reverse credit if the value was not fully written off during the impugned period. Further it is not the case of the Revenue that the appellant has fully written off the value of inputs. He further submitted that this issue is no more res integra and is settled in favour of the assessee by various decisions of the Tribunal which has been relied upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erial on record, I find that it is an admitted fact that the appellant has partially written off the value of certain inputs and has not fully written off. Further, as per the provisions of Rule 3(5B), the appellant is required to reverse the CENVAT credit if he has written off fully the value of inputs whereas in this case, the appellant has not fully written off. Further, in the case of partial writting off, the provision has been incorporated with effect from 1.4.2011 whereas in the present case, the period involved is prior to this date, therefore, this amendment is not applicable in the appellant s case. Further, I find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by various case laws relied upon by the appellant cited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
