9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t had availed credit under the provisions of the Credit Rules on cess paid on procurement of goods and services. It is also not in dispute that by a notification dated 01.03.2015, levy of cess was exempted. The closing balance of credit of cess as on 28.02.2015, therefore, could not be utilized by the appellant and it was carried forward by him in the central excise returns. The Division Bench in Emami Cement [ 2022 (3) TMI 1254 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] , after placing reliance upon the decision of the Tribunal in Slovak India Trading which decision was subsequently affirmed by the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court as also Division Bench decisions of the Tribunal in Bharat Heavy Electricals, Kirloskar Toyota, Nichiplast India as also th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hydro/Nuclear/Power sector establishments. 3. Prior to 01.03.2015, cess was leviable on goods manufactured by the appellant, in addition to excise duty, and the appellant availed CENVAT credit under the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. the Credit Rules on cess paid on procurement of goods and services. However, the notification dated 01.03.2015 exempted levy of the cess on all goods falling in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 the Tariff Act . Thus, w.e.f. 01.03.2015 only central excise duty was leviable and levy of cess was exempted. The closing balance of the cess as on 28.02.2015 could not consequently be utilised by the appellant post 01.03.2015 and it was carried forward in the central excise returns. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the department before the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court were dismissed. These decisions are reported in 2008 (10) S.T.R. 101 (Kar.) Union of India vs. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. and 2008 (223) E.L.T. A170 (S.C.) Union of India vs. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.; (ii) Reliance has also been placed upon the following decisions of the Tribunal: a) M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (Excise Taxation Division) vs. The Commissioner, Central Goods Service Tax, Central Excise Customs, Bhopal 2020-VIL-402-CESTAT-DEL-CE; b) Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CE ST, Gurgaon-I Service Tax Appeal No. 60095 of 2021 decided on 24.05.2021; c) Nichiplast India Private Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner CGST Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lectricals Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C.T., Secunderabad-ST 2020 (41) G.S.T.L 465 (Tri.-Hyd); (ii) Since cess was not payable after the cut-off date, disallowing credit thereafter is justified. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Cellular Operators Association of India vs. Union of India 2018 (14) G.S.T.L. 522 (Del.); and (iii) Clarification issued by Circular dated 07.12.2015 also disentitles the appellant from claiming refund. 7. The submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorized representative appearing for the Department have been considered. 8. It is not in dispute that prior to 01.03.2015 cess was leviable on manufactured goods, in addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
