9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant debit Rs.5,48,144/- in their cenvat account. The said debit was not assessed to duty through any proceedings. Therefore, the appellant had taken suo moto credit of the said amount. In the present case, it is noted that the amount debited in cenvat account by the appellant at the instance of officers of Department of Revenue was not adjudicated upon, was not assessed to duty nor was appropriated. It is further noted that sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides for manner of utilization of cenvat credit. As per the said provisions, cenvat credit can be utilized for payment of any duty of excise on final product, or on removal of partially processed goods, or on removal of capital goods as such, or for payment of servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nformed the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner that there was no increase of duty by Rs.16/- per quintal and, therefore, the credit of Rs.5,48,144/- debited by them on 21.01.2006 was taken as credit in their cenvat account. This was objected to by Revenue and the appellant was issued with a show cause notice dated 25.03.2008 calling upon to show cause as to why the amount of Rs.5,48,144/- taken as credit by the appellant should not be recovered from them under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On contest, the said show cause notice was adjudicated through order-in-original dated 31.12.2012. The original authority held that the said cenvat credit was inadmissible and ordered for recove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ii) BDH Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I reported at 2008 (229) ELT 364 (Tri.-LB). iii) Mahavir Vanaspati Company vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana reported at 2009 (239) ELT 91 (Tri.-Del.). iv) Kuma Stainless Tube Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III reported at 2018 (364) ELT 980 (Tri.-Chan.). 4. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and submissions made. We note that the appellant had paid appropriate central excise duty on goods cleared by them from 01.03.2005 to 12.05.2005 and after six months of the payment of the appropriate duty, officers of the Department of Revenue through oral direction on 21.01.2006 made the appellant debit Rs.5,48,144/- in their cenvat accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee cannot suo motu credit the amount in its account. The Tribunal ultimately held that in view of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court and Karnataka High Court judgments, the assessee was entitled to suo moto credit the amount in its account as duty cannot be paid twice and it was just the correction/reversal of the entries which was done by the assessee and there was nothing wrong in the same. The Tribunal, therefore, held the action of the assessee to be valid. 3 . Aggrieved of the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue has assailed the order dated 25-3-2015 vehemently submitting that in view of the circular dated 23-8-2007, the amount with respect to the service tax for payment of GTA can be paid by cash only and, therefore, the reversal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the Cenvat Register and corrected the mistake. The Tribunal only viewed it as an arithmetical error which the respondent was authorized to correct. Insofar as the finding of the Tribunal that basic excise duty of Rs. 3.58 lacs was already paid by the respondent earlier and it was repaid while depositing the differential VAT duty was concerned, the Department has not raised any serious objection either in this tax appeal or before us through oral submissions. We therefore proceed on such basis. That being the situation, all that the respondent did was to correct the arithmetical error by making necessary entries in the register even before filing the form at the end of the month before the Excise Authorities. In the present case, when w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GTA is fulfilled, there was no question of not reversing the amount paid from their CENVAT credit account. Further, the circular is dated 23-8-2007 and the period in question is March, 2006 to March, 2007, therefore the Tribunal was right in holding that the circular dated 23-8-2007 is having no application. 10 . We are of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal is not required to be interfered with as the revenue s demand for payment of service tax on GTA has already been done by the assessee by paying the service tax amount in cash and, therefore, the amount paid from CENVAT credit account was required to be reversed. 11 . Accordingly, there is no force in the appeal preferred by the Revenue, the same is hereby dismissed. We note t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
