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 (12) TMI 667

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nefit/ concession provides for assessee s to avail credit of duty paid on goods and services, as provided for in the statute. The credit accumulated can be set off on final duty to be paid against goods and services. Once the assessee avails of the scheme then rights to avail of the credit accrue to the assessee. Unless the provision of law is specifically modified taking away this right, the assessee cannot be denied the same. In the present case, there are nothing in the amended provision of Rule 11 of CCR, 2004, to show that the intention of the legislature was to effect the existing rights of the assessee s to enjoy the credit already accumulated. In the case of EICHER MOTORS LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 1999 (1) TMI 34 - SUPREME COURT .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... I registers since July 2004. The appellant was issued with a Show Cause Notice dated 26.5.2014 to deny the refund claim of Rs.29,51,234/- on the ground that the amount had lapsed as per Rule 11(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. After due process of law, the Ld. Original Authority rejected the refund claim. Against such order, the appellant filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order rejected the appeal. Hence this appeal. 3. Shri T. Shanmugam, Ld. Advocate appeared for the appellant and Smt. O.M. Reena, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared for the respondent. 3.1 The learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant opted for exemption granted under Notification No 30/2004 CE from 13.03.2006. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ions of Rule 11(3) of CCR, 2004.did not have any ambiguity and any credit of CENVAT credit lying in the accounts of the assessee as on 01/03/2007, when Notification 10/2007 CE came into effect, would have to be rejected from the said date, irrespective of when the credit was availed. The Ld. AR prayed that the appeal may be rejected. 4. I have gone through the appeal memorandum along with the case laws cited and have the heard the rival parties to the dispute. I find that the issue to be decided in the present case is whether the amended Rule 11(3) will apply to the CENVAT credit balance available in the appellant books prior to insertion of Rule 11(3). 5. It would be profitable to set out the said Rule 11(3) as amended for a better underst .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t case I do not finding anything in the amended provision of Rule 11 of CCR, 2004, to show that the intention of the legislature was to effect the existing rights of the assessee s to enjoy the credit already accumulated. 7. In the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and others [(1999) 2 SCC 361], it has been held that the rights of credit facilities accrued under existing law are not to be altered. Paragraphs-5 and 6 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted as under: - 5. . . As pointed out by us that when on the strength of the Rules available, certain acts have been done by the parties concerned, incidents following thereto must take place in accordance with the Scheme under which the duty had been paid on the manufactu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erned to make a rule which is impugned herein and, therefore, we may have no hesitation to hold that the Rule cannot be applied to the goods manufactured prior to 16-3-1995 on which duty had been paid and credit facility thereto has been availed of for the purpose of manufacture of further goods. (emphasis applied) 8. Furthermore, in CCE V Dai Ichi Karkarta Ltd (1999) 7 SCC 448, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held, as under:- 18. .. There is no provision in the rules which provides for a reversal of the credit by the Excise Authorities except where it has been illegally or irregularly taken, in which event it stands cancelled or, if utilised, has to be paid for. We are here really concerned with credit that has been validly taken, and its be .....

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