2018 (7) TMI 789 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Benefit of Rule 6(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 – Insertion of sub-rule 3AA in Cenvat Credit (Third amendment) Rules, 2016 with effect from 01.04.2016 – Held that:- Sub-rule 3AA says that manufacturer or a provider of output service who failed to exercise the option provided under sub-rule (3) is supposed to be given a chance by the competent authority to follow the procedure and pay the amount referred in clause 2 of sub-rule 3.
–
In view of non-extension of benefit provided under Rule 6(5) to the appellant by the adjudicating authority to the appellant which would require production and scrutinisation of documentary evidence. It is a fit case which should be remanded to the original adjud
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
case it would have been allowed credit of ₹ 78,038/- for the year 2009-10 and ₹ 1,08,402/- for the year 2010-11. Further, Rule 6(3) formula would have been reduced duty liability to ₹ 2,34,549/- against duty demand of ₹ 5,39,664/-, besides other issues relating to the nature of business if covered under the definition of trading and exemption category etc. During the course of hearing also, insertion of sub-rule 3AA in Cenvat Credit (Third amendment) Rules, 2016 with effect from 01.04.2016 and the underlying spirit thereof has been discussed. 2. In the presence of ld. Counsel for the appellant Shri P.K. Shetty and Ld. AR, Shri Atul Sharma, applicability of sub-rule 3AA to the appellant s case, since adjudication ord
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e rate of fifteen per cent per annum from the due date for payment of amount for each of the month, till the date of payment thereof. In view of the above referred rule, manufacturer or a provider of output service who failed to exercise the option provided under sub-rule (3) is supposed to be given a chance by the competent authority to follow the procedure and pay the amount referred in clause 2 of sub-rule 3. 4. In view of the above procedure and in view of non-extension of benefit provided under Rule 6(5) to the appellant by the adjudicating authority to the appellant which would require production and scrutinisation of documentary evidence. I consider it to be a fit case which should be remanded to the original adjudicating authority f
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =