9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent. [Order per: S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - This appeal arises from OIA No. 58/05-C.E. dated 30-8-2005 by which the Commissioner has confirmed OIO No. 65/2004 dated 2-11-2004 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the Cenvat credit availed on the additional customs duty adjusted by debit in the DEPB Scheme. He has relied on Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal in the case of M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notification should be read as prospective only. 4. Learned counsel submits that during the relevant period he availed Cenvat credit, there was judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Polyhose India Pvt. Ltd. = 2003 (152) E.L.T. 361. He submits that there was bona fide belief supported by the Tribunal ruling to avail Cenvat credit. Therefore he cannot be held to have suppressed facts for invocati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s got only prospective effect. However it cannot be said that appellants have suppressed the facts as they have availed the benefit under bona fide belief. There were Tribunal rulings supporting the plea such as Polyhose India (P) Ltd. Therefore, the allegation of suppression does not stand to reason. The revenue is entitled to recover the amount for normal period. The impugned order is modified t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
