9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are engaged in the manufacture of Scented Tobacco/Zarda falling under Chapter heading 24 of CETA, 1985. The appellant approached the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Hubbali Division, with a request letter dated 08.01.2016 for transfer of CENVAT credit lying un-utilized in their Account of Manakapur unit (situated under the jurisdiction of Belgaum Division). It was stated that the credit pertains to input namely Bulk Zarda purchased from M/s Godavat Industries Pvt. Ltd. It was stated that such input was used for manufacture of Scented Zarda and duty payment was made under Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machine Rules, 2010. The appellant stated that they shifted their Unit from Manakapur falling under Belgaum Di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter for withdrawal of such permission, SCN dated 15.09.2017 was issued asking the appellant as to why such erroneous permission already given should not be withdrawn. After hearing the case in detail, the respondent vide OIO dated 05.12.2017 ordered for withdrawal of permission already granted for transfer of CENVAT credit. Aggrieved by the OIO, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who rejected the same. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that on perusal of Rule 16 of the Chewing Tobac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly taken and utilized credit in terms of Section 11A and Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944. It is his further submission that admissibility of the credit for manufacturers of Chewing Tobacco and Zarda Scented Tobacco is prescribed under Rule 16 of the Chewing Tobacco Rules, independent of the definition of 'inputs' and 'input services' prescribed under CCR. Learned Counsel also referred to the decision in the case of Hans Steel Rolling Mill Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Chandigarh [2011 (265) ELT 321 (SC)], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that importing of elements of one scheme of tax administration to a different scheme of tax administration would be wholly inappropriate as it would disturb the smooth functioning of that uniq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it- 5.5) Bangalore - 2018-VIL-183-KAR. * Jain Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Value Added Tax - 2019 (27) G.S.T.L. 651 (Del.). * Arvind Cotspin Vs. UOI - 2017 (350) ELT 181 (Bom.). 5. On the other hand, Learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the permission earlier granted vide letter dated 27.01.2016 has rightly been withdrawn in view of Rule 16 of Chewing Tobacco Rules, 2010. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record and after going through various Rules as provided in Chewing Tobacco Rules, 2010, I find that the following facts are undisputed: (a) The appellant claimed for credit on duty-paid bulk Zarda at their erstwhile Manakapur factory is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
