Full Judgment
" The said inadmissible amount of Rs. 1,20,624/- is not available to the said assessee because, i) the said amount of Rs.1,20,624/- is not a specified duty under Rule 57AB ibid and, ii) the challans or any other documents under which the said goods have been sent to/received back are not specified duty paying documents under Rule 57AE ibid: The said assessee have availed the above said credit and submitted the extract of such credit account under the heading namely "Entry book of duty credit" giving (hereby an erroneous impression to the scrutinizing authority that the credit so availed are only in respect of duties specified under Rule 57AB ibid., but on inspection of the documents submitted by (hem on demand, it was found that credit availed are not in respect of any specified duties but are in respect of amounts which are not eligible for credit under Rule 57AB ibid." and the credit should not be demanded under the provisions of Rule 57AH read with Section 11A along with interest and penalties not be imposed.
"The Addi Commissioner, in the impugned order has observed that the Annexure-II challans on which the credit was taken are pertaining to the period from 1^st April 2000 and also the debit of the duty amount and credit of the same also are pertaining to period after 1^st April 2000, and that from 1^st April 2000, by the introduction of new Rules 57AC(5) there is no provision for debiting duty on inputs cleared for job work and also the Annexure -II challans are not prescribed documents for taking credit under new Rule 57AE, accordingly the credit was disallowed.
However, the Appellants in their submissions have contended that in view of provisions of the Notification No. 37/2000 (NT) dated 3.5.2000, under Rule 57A5 (4), the Credit of duty debited on inputs sent to job worker under the provisions of erstwhile Rule 57F (4) shall be eligible credit on the processed goods received by the assesses on or after 1st of April 2000.
The para 4 of the Notification No. 37/2000 (NT) dated 3.5.2000 reads as under: In Rule 576 of the said rules, after Sub-rule(3), following sub- rule shall be inserted, namely :- "(4) A manufacturer, who had debited amount equivalent to ten per cent of the value of inputs or as the case may be, partially processed inputs under the Sub-rule (4) of Rule 57F as it existed prior to the 1st day of April, 2000, and receives back the inputs or as the case may be, partially processed inputs, on or after the 1^st day of April, 2000, shall be allowed to take CENVA T credit of the amount debited by him and shall be allowed to utilize the CENVAT credit in accordance with these rules." From the above para, it is very clear that the said notification allows the credit of an amount of duty debited while at the time of removing of inputs under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 57F as it existed prior to 1st day of April, 2000 even if the such inputs, after reprocessing, are received after 1^st April 2000.
However, I find that the scope of this notification can not be extended to the inputs which are cleared on or after 1st April 2000.
Hence the credit of duty debited at the time of clearance of inputs cleared on or after 1st April. 2000 is not admissible.
The CENVAT rules stipulated sending of central semi-finished goods for reprocessing and bringing back the same to the original factory from the job within a given period. If the goods are not brought back then the assessee has to pay an amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit attributable to the inputs. Rule 57(AC) prescribes that assessee shall pay back credit equivalent to 10% of value. It is because from job workers premises processed inputs should not be cleared on fragmented value they can be cleared on the basis of governing or attributable value credit of which legally could be claimed by the assessee. It is for this reason, the manufacturer is entitled to take credit of the amount debited earlier. This was a specific provision and it did not exist after the CENVAT rules came into force from 1.4.2000.
In view of the foregoing discussions, I find that the Addl.
Commissioner in the impugned order has correctly disallowed the credit on the inputs earlier cleared for job work and thereafter brought back during the period after 1st April, 2000 . I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, therefore appeal is not sustainable." 3. After hearing both sides and considering the issue, it is found that the question of bar of limitation for the demands ordered has not been addressed by the lower authority which was raised and was required to be answered. The appeals are therefore required to be allowed as remand to the lower authority to re-determine all the issues mat being kept open.