9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he countervailing duty, or not? HELD THAT:- Identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the tribunal in M/S HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. APPELLANT VERSUS GST, BHOPAL RESPONDENT [ 2018 (3) TMI 1124 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] , holding that taking into consideration Notification No. 12/2012-Cus there is no bar for availment of CENVAT Credit in terms of the Rule 3(7) where duty paid under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus and CENVAT Credit cannot be denied. The tribunal rightly granted relief in favour of the respondent assessee and the order does not suffer from any error warranting interference - the appeal fails and is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue. - IA NO. GA/01/2022 CEXA NO. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as prescribed in respect of duty of excise in the Notification No. 1/2011 CE dated 01.03.2011 and in Notification No. 12/2012 CE dated 17.03.2012 read with Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is applicable to the countervailing duty? 2. We have heard Mr. Vipul Kundalia, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. Tapan Bhanja, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rahul Dhanuka advocates for the respondent. 3. The respondent assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Sponge Iron, Billet, TMT Bars and the principal inputs used in the manufacture of final products are Pig Iron, Sponge Iron and Scrap. The department conducted an audit for the period 2013-2014. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tional duty of Customs (CVD)paid on imported coal in terms of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 and Notification No. 12/2013-Cus. dated 01.03.2013 and as to whether there is any restriction for availing CENVAT Credit in terms of the said notification particularly as mentioned in Serial No. 67, Condition No. 25. 5. The case of the revenue is that Rule 3(1)(i) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 provides that a manufacture or producer of final products or a provider of taxable service shall be allowed to take credit (CENVAT Credit) of the duty of excise specified in the first schedule to the Excise Tariff Act leviable under the Excise Act provided that CENVAT Credit of such duty of excise shall not be allowed to be taken when pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.03.2012 cannot impliedly be read into when the rate of CVD has not been followed from the excise notification but as generally applied the rate on its opinion. Thus, the tribunal held that there is no room for any intendment in taxing statutes and they require strict interpretation. Further the tribunal held that even if generally applied rate of CVD which was 1 % up to 28.02.2013 and 2 % thereafter under the customs notification and the concessional excise duty read on domestically manufacture goods 1 % without CENVAT excise notification where not uniform and in any event the expression equivalent appearing in Rule 3 (1) (vii) of the Rules for modification of CVD could not be restricted including the tariff rate of excise duty of 6 % o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of non-availment of cenvat benefit cannot be satisfied in respect of imported goods. However, in the Budget 2013-14, as a conscious policy decision, it was decided to levy 2% CVD both on steam coal and bituminous coal. This is the general applied rate of CVD on all imports of steam coal and bituminous coal regardless of the excise duty leviable on like domestic coal. No such condition has been laid down that an importer cannot avail of this concessional CVD of 2% is he has availed of the concessional BCD on steam coal under another notification. It is therefore clarified that an importer while availing of BCD exemption on steam coal under FTA notification No. 46/2011-Cus can simultaneously avail of concessional CVD at 2% under no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es Limited 2019(3) TMI 240-CESTAT Ahmedabad, M/s. Asahi Songwon Colors Limited Versus CCE ST, Vadodara 2018(9) TMI 159- CESTAT Ahmedabad, Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs CGST, Jaipur-I Ors, Versus M/s. Shree Cement Limited 2022 (7) TMI 978- CESTAT New Delhi, SRF Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2015 (318) ELT 607 (SC), and M/s. Tamil Nadu Newsprint Papers Limited Versus Commissioner of GST Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli 2021 (10) TMI 13-CESTAT Chennai. The above decisions rendered by the tribunal have not been shown to have been reversed or modified by the High Court. 10. In the light of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that the tribunal rightly granted relief in favour of the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
