Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (9) TMI 768

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appellant has fulfilled all the conditions of N/N. 20/2007-CE, as amended by N/N. 20/2008-CE. Thus, there is no dispute regarding the eligibility of the credit to the appellant. The impugned order has not allowed the refund of self-credit claimed by the appellant to the extent of 56% of the said differential duty paid, amounting to Rs. 10,27,377/-, based on the observation that the appellant have not complied with Paragraph 2A of the said Notification - In the present case, as directed by the Department, the appellant paid the duty for the months of August 2011 to December 2011 in the month of January 2012. Thus, there is no infirmity in taking self-credit of all the duties paid in the month of January, including the duty paid for the e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd of duty paid from PLA (account current). 2.1. Paragraph 2A of the Notification No. 20/2007-CE, as amended by Notification No. 20/2008-CE dated 27.03.2008, provides that duty would be payable on value addition as per the rates specified. 2.2. As per Paragraphs 2B 2C of the said Notification, a manufacturer shall be eligible for the exemption by following the procedure mentioned below : i) the manufacturer has to first utilise whole of CENVAT credit available to him on the last day of the month and pay the balance amount of duty in cash ii) to submit statement providing details of total duty paid and that paid by utilisation of CENVAT credit on each category of goods as per the Notification to the Asst. or Dy. Commissioner by 7th of the ne .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e differential duty for the period August 2011 to December 2011, would start from 01.01.2012 due to changes in SAP system, which can take place only in the beginning of the succeeding year. 2.5. Accordingly, the Appellant, along with the duty payments on the clearances for the month of January, 2012, also paid the differential duty of Rs. 18,89,626/- along with interest from PLA on 02.02.2012, for the period from August 2011 to December 2011. The fact of payment was informed to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide letter dated 02.02.2012. 2.6. The Appellant took self-credit of Rs. 3,78,27,753/- (including the amount of Rs. 10,27,377/- being 56% of the differential duty of Rs. 18,89,626/- paid for month of August 2011 to December 2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . The appellant submits that there is no bar in the notification for availing self-credit of duty paid on past clearances; the credit is admissible on the last day of the following month and hence they have availed the recredit as the duty for the earlier months was also paid in January 2012 only. 3.1. They submit that the Tribunal at Kolkata in their own case vide Final Order No. 76274 of 2024 dated 27.06.2024 in Excise Appeal No. 71366 of 2013, on a similar issue, has allowed taking of self-credit as the differential duty paid for the past period. 3.2. The appellant also submits that the admissibility of disputed credit gets support from CBEC Circular No.B-3/5/2003-TRU dated 30.04.2003 and Tribunal judgment in New India Wire Cables report .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nths of August 2011 to December 2011 in the month of January 2012. Thus, we hold that there is no infirmity in taking self-credit of all the duties paid in the month of January, including the duty paid for the earlier months. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant is eligible for the refund of self-credit of Rs.10,27,377/-.Thus, that portion of the impugned order rejecting the refund of self-credit to the extent of Rs.10,27,377/- is liable to be set aside and accordingly, we do so. 7. In view of the above discussion, we set aside that portion of the impugned order rejecting the refund of self-credit to the extent of Rs.10,27,377/- and allow the appeal filed by the appellant, with consequential relief, if any, as per law. ( Operative part o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates