9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch provision in the law. The requirement under Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 is that when the inputs are cleared as such the Central Excise duty involved in the inputs which is availed as Cenvat credit needs to be reversed.' It has been the interpretation and understanding that such credit is already consumed till the inputs received and further there is no legal provision exists requiring the reversal of such credit, thus, the demand is not to be raised. The following allegation in the show cause notices based on which the demand was proposed has not legal backing. This court finds that the view as expressed by the Tribunal is strictly in conformity with the Rules. Rule 2(k) of the Rules defines input , whereas Rule 2(l) defines input service , meaning thereby both the terms have been defined independently. Rule 3 defines the term Cenvat credit , which includes duty paid under various enactments and also the service tax leviable under Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994. Rule 3(5) of the Rules only talks about the Cenvat credit taken on inputs or capital goods - Once the rule-making authority has defined the terms specifically and used the same in different provisions consciously, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certain quantity of inputs after performing quality check to another factory situated at Haridwar after reversing credit of excise duty availed on such inputs. 2.2 Audit of the Appellant was carried out from 31.03.2011 to 13.06.2012 for the period Oct, 2008 to Dec,2011 and the copy of Audit report was provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 25.07.2012. Afterwards, certain correspondence took place between the Appellant and the Jurisdictional Superintendent. The Superintendent asked the Appellant to deposit the amount of Credit in respect of the input services. As the Appellant was not in agreement with the audit report, therefore, sought the detail based on which such demand was made and the legal provisions for such requirement. 2.3 The Jurisdictional officer wrote to the Audit Team to provide the necessary detail, however, no information was received from the Audit Team till 09.04.2013. Thereafter, the department again sought detail from the Appellant. As the Appellant was not in agreement with the audit report, therefore, sought the detail based on which such demand was made and the legal provisions for such requirement. 2.4 After some correspondence, the first show cause no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reversal of such cenvat credit. 4. Learned Departmental Representative has justified the impugned order and prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed being devoid of any merits. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal record. 6. We find that the issue is no more res integra and has been decided by the Tribunal in the appellant s own case for the subsequent period i.e. from July 2015 to February 2016 and September 2014 to June 2015. The Tribunal vide Final Order No. 71087-71088 of 2018 dated 03.05.2018 passed in Excise Appeal No.70301 and 70302 of 2018 allowed the appeals filed by the appellant by holding as under:- 4. On perusal of the Show Cause Notice, I observe that no specific provision of Cenvat Credit Rules requiring reversal of proportionate input Service Tax credit involved in the inputs cleared as such has been invoked. In fact, there is no such provision in the law. The requirement under Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 is that when the inputs are cleared as such the Central Excise duty involved in the inputs which is availed as Cenvat credit needs to be reversed. The appellants have precisely followed the said provision. Therefore, I do not find any viol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Therefore, the conference concluded that the present rule represents the correct provision in accordance with the principles of input tax credit. Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, does not need any amendment. Audit para may be replied accordingly. 8. It has been the interpretation and understanding that such credit is already consumed till the inputs received and further there is no legal provision exists requiring the reversal of such credit, thus, the demand is not to be raised. The following allegation in the show cause notices based on which the demand was proposed has not legal backing. 9. We also find that this matter was before the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I V/s Punjab Steels reported in 2011 (21) S.T.R.5 (P H) and the substantial question of law before the Hon ble High Court was whether the credit of input service availed at the time of receipt of inputs is required to be reversed at the time of clearance of inputs as such when the said service tax credit is in respect of or related to such inputs? 10. The Tribunal reversed the orders passed by the lower authorities with the following observation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ins to refund in case of exports, which stands altogether on different footings. Once the rule-making authority has defined the terms specifically and used the same in different provisions consciously, the argument of learned counsel for the Revenue that merely by analogy even if in one provision both the terms have been used, the same should be read in the other provision as well, where it has not been specifically mentioned, has no legs to stand, as the tax cannot be levied merely by inference or presumption. It is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose of the statute more than what is stated in the plain language. Words cannot be added or substituted so as to give a particular meaning. Reference can be made to the observations of a Constitution Bench of Hon ble the Supreme Court in Mathuram Agrwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1999) 8 SCC 667 : The intention of the legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a taxing Act it is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose of the statute more than what is stated in the plain language. It is not th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
