9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant have cleared the capital goods as such on payment of excise duty at the rate prevailing at the time of removal. The said transaction was reflected in their ER-1 return. Therefore, the only dispute was the amount of Cenvat credit to be paid by the appellant which was very much known to the department when the appellant cleared it on the invoice and reflected in ER-1 return. It is also fact on record that this issue was raised by the Audit party in 2010 despite that the show cause notice was not issued within the normal period. It is also noted that whatever short paid duty as per the department was available as a Cenvat credit to their own recipient unit of capital goods. Therefore, the present case is also involved revenue neut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Credit on the capital goods removed as such without putting to use. 2.1 He submits that the demand confirmed in the impugned order is without jurisdiction for the reason that during the relevant period there was no mechanism to recover any amount of Cenvat Credit availed in respect of capital goods removed as such. It is his submission, an explanation was added in Rule 3 vide Notification No. 03/2013-CE(NT) dated 01.03.2013 whereby the provision of Rule 14 readwith Section 11A was invoked. In the present case the period involved is prior to the aforesaid amendment. Therefore, for the relevant period in absence of any machinery provision for recovery, the confirmation of demand in the present case is without jurisdiction. 2.2 He also submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ELT 467 (Tri. Ahd.) Max Speciality Ltd. v. CCE ST, Ludhiana 2021 (375) ELT 420 (Tri. Chd.) Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur 2021 (375) ELT 379 (Tri. Del.) CCE, Mumbai v. Special Steel Ltd. 2015 (329) ELT 449 (Tri. Mum.) Maintained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2016 (334) ELT A123 (SC) Precot Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Calicut 2014 (313) ELT 789 (Tri. Bang.) CCE C (Appeals) Ahmedabad v. Narayan Polyplast 2005 (179) ELT 20 (SC) CCE C, Vadodara V. Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals 2005 (179) ELT 276 (SC) CCE v. Textile Corporation 2008 (231) ELT 195 (SC) CCE v. Jamshedpur Beverages 2007 (214) ELT 321 (SC) CCE v. Coca Cola India (Pvt.) Ltd. 2007 (213) ELT 490 (SC) CCE v. Anupam Industries Ltd Final Order No. A/10432/2023 Dated 07.03.2023 Gold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present case is 2009-10 and the show cause notice was issued on 24.06.2013. The fact is not undisputed that the appellant have cleared the capital goods as such on payment of excise duty at the rate prevailing at the time of removal. The said transaction was reflected in their ER-1 return. Therefore, the only dispute was the amount of Cenvat credit to be paid by the appellant which was very much known to the department when the appellant cleared it on the invoice and reflected in ER-1 return. It is also fact on record that this issue was raised by the Audit party in 2010 despite that the show cause notice was not issued within the normal period. 4.1 It is also noted that whatever short paid duty as per the department was available as a C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
