M/s Rathi Tiles Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE & CGST,
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 1778 – CESTAT, Delhi – TMI
CESTAT, Delhi – AT
Dated:- 17-9-2018
Appeal No. E/52061/2018-SM (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 101(AG)/CE/JDR/2018 dated 24. 2. 2018) – Final Order No. 52994/2018
Central Excise
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, J.
Ms. Asmita Nayak, Advocate – for the appellant
Shri P. Juneja, DR – for the respondent
Archana Wadhwa,
After hearing both the sides, I find that the appellant was engaged in import of marble slabs. During the year February 2015, the appellant was availing the small scale exemption benefit and after crossing the same, they started availing the Cenvat credit. In terms of the relevant provisions, they availed the cr
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
that there is no dispute about the appellant's entitlement to avail the credit of the inputs lying in stock as on the date of their crossing the exemption limit, in terms of Rule 3(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. There is also no dispute about the quantum of inputs lying in stock, either as such or as contained in final product lying in stock. The only objection of the Revenue is in terms of Rule 4(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules which permits availment of credit within a period of six months from the date of issuance of the document.
6. If the said objection of the Revenue is upheld, an assessee crossing the exemption limit on a particular date, would not be able to avail the credit, thus making the provisions of Rule 3(2), as infruct
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
erpretation of both the rules leads to the above conclusion. By referring to one provision of law, the other provision cannot be made otiose, as per the settled principle of interpretation. It is not the appellant's fault that they crossed the exemption limit after the period of six months from the date of receipt of the inputs. It is also well settled principle of interpretation that a particular provision of law should not be interpreted in a manner so as to render the other provision as inapplicable or ineffective. Substantive right provided under the law cannot be denied by referring to other provision, if such substantive right is otherwise available to an assessee.
7. In such a scenario, by adopting the principles of harmonious cons
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =