9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CVD is only aimed at counter balancing excise duty. HELD THAT:- There is no restriction in these notifications unlike Sl. No. 67 of Central Excise Notification No. 12/2012 dated 17 March 2012 in so far as the availment of Cenvat credit on coal is concerned. The credit of CVD is available under Rule 3(1)(vii) of the CCR and the proviso to Rule 3(1)(i) restricting credit in case of coal cleared under Excise Notification No. 12/2012 dated 17 March 2012 cannot impliedly be read into when the rate of CVD has not been borrowed from the excise notification but has a generally applied rate on its own. There is considerable merit in the contention of the Appellant that there is no room for any intendment in taxing statutes which deserves a strict i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g under the Cenvat Credit Scheme using steam coal as an input. Proceedings were initiated against the Appellant vide a Show-cause Notice dated 30 March 2016, inter alia, alleging irregular availment of Cenvat credit on coal subject to CVD/excise duty of 1%/2% during the period 1 March 2011 to 29 February 2016 (the 'relevant period'). The Notice proceeds on the basis that if Cenvat credit of Central Excise Duty on coal cleared at the concessional rate of 1% under Notification No. 1/2011-CE dated 1 March 2011 as amended vide Notification No. 12/2011-CE dated 17 March 2012 was not available to the user then the credit of CVD on imported coal cleared at the rate of 1%/2% also should not be available as CVD is only aimed at counter balancing exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification had no relevance and could not be impliedly read into.Further, reference was also invited to the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 February 2015 of the Regional Advisory Committee of Hyderabad Zone wherein this particular issue of credit of CVD at the rate of 1%/2% was specifically addressed in favour of the assessee and the following decisions of different benches of the Tribunal. * Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. GST, Bhopal [2018 (363) ELT 1085 (Tri. - Del)] (para 5). * Jaypee Sidhi Cement Plant Vs. CCGST, Customs and Excise [2019 (369) ELT 1673] (para 8 and 9). * CCE Vs. ST, Surat-I Vs. M/s. Aarti Industries Ltd. [2019 (3) TMI 240- CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] (para 4). * M/s. Asahi Songwon Colors Ltd. Vs. CCE&ST Vadodara [2018 (9) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri J.Chattopadhyay, learned Authorized Representative, appearing on behalf of the Respondent Revenue, on the other hand supports the findings in Order-in-Appeal. 4. Heard both sides through video conferencing and perused the appeal records. 5. We find that the crux of the issue before us relates to admissibility of Cenvatcredit of CVD on imported coal cleared at the rate of 1%/2% under Sl. No. 123 of the Customs Notification No. 12/2012-Cus dated 17 March 2012 as amended by Customs Notification No. 12/2013-Cus dated 1 March 2013. There is no restriction in these notifications unlike Sl. No. 67 of Central Excise Notification No. 12/2012 dated 17 March 2012 in so far as the availment of Cenvat credit on coal is concerned. The credit of CV ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned show cause notice, the said benefit was denied. Accordingly, the recovery of Cenvat credit of 1% /2 % CVD paid on imported coal amounting to ₹ 5,59,54,730/- as was availed during the relevant period was proposed to be rejected and recovered along with the interest at the appropriate rate and appropriate penalty. The proposal was confirmed vide Order-in-Original No.06/2018 dated 21.02.2018. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. We have heard Shri Amit Jain, learned advocate and Shri V B Jain, learned Authorized Representative for the Department. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that adjudicating authority below has wrongly made applicable the notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns reveal that the Customs Notification is applicable to the imported coal whereas the Excise Notification is applicable to the domestically manufactured goods. The condition No. 25 of Excise Notification which denies availment of cenvat credit on imports of coal manufactured by the supplier of coal, as has been taken the basis in the Order-in-original, shall therefore be applicable for domestically manufactured goods only and not on the imported coal. Perusal of Excise notification No. 67 further reveal that no such condition is applicable in case of import of coal. 8. The narrow compass of the adjudication, therefore, remains as to 'whether under Customs notification against S.No. 67 i.e. while importing the coal, the appellants were en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
