AURO SPINNING MILLS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants in appeal against the impugned order.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturer of excisable goods and availed the exemption under notification No. 30/04. Initially the appellant procured capital goods and availed the cenvat credit thereafter on presumption that as they were availing the exemption under Notification No. 30/04, they reversed the cenvat credit taken on these capital goods. Later on realizing that they are entitled to take Cenvat credit on these capital goods, they took suo moto credit which was reversed by them. On scrutiny of ER I return, it was found that appellant has taken the suo moto credit. Therefore, the same was sought to be denied by way of show cause notice on the premise that as per Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, they have taken the suo moto credit without any document as prescribed under Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, consequently the impugned proceedings were initiated by the adjudicating authority confirming the demand on the premise that appellant is required to file refund claim under section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944. The same was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeal). Therefore, the appellant is before me.

(3.) ON the other hand learned AR reiterated the finding of the impugned order.