9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct to the condition that no credit of duty paid on the inputs and capital goods was being availed. However, the said condition was removed vide Notification No. 10/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003 and the appellants started availing the Cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs and the capital goods. The dispute in the present appeals relate to the Cenvat credit in respect of inputs lying in stock as on 1-3-2003, either as such or in the shape of in process goods or finally manufactured goods, in terms of Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002. The Revenue's contention is that the said Rule being a transitional provision, provide for availing Cenvat credit of duty on inputs lying in stock, when the exempted final product ceases to be exempt or beco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant, the question of transfer of the same does not arise. Similarly sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 is applicable only where exemption notifications are based on value/quantity of clearance in a financial year. As such, I am of the view, that transitional provisions as contained under Rule 9 of Rules 2002 are not applicable. 5. Reference has also been made to the provisions of Rule 3 to sub-rule (2). The said Rule reads as under Rule 3(2). "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the manufacturer or producer of final products shall be allowed to take Cenvat credit of the duty paid on inputs lying in stock or process or inputs contained in the final products lying in stock on the date on which any goods cease to be exempted g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m 1-3-03 with the result that after the said date Modvat credit become available to the assesses in respect of inputs received on or after the said cut off date. Allowing of credit in respect of inputs in stock would amount to giving retrospective effect to Notification No. 10/03 dated 1-3-03, which removed the condition of non-availing of credit only from the said date only. As such, it cannot be permitted to make the removal of the debarring clause with retrospective effect by allowing the credit in respect of the inputs in stock on the said date. 6. In view of the above, I reject all the appeals. However since the dispute relates to the bona fide interpretation of the Modvat rules, imposition of penalty upon the appellants is not justif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
