##PAGE1##

CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH

REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I

Excise Appeal No. 60153 of 2020

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. JNK-EXCUS-APP-231-19-20 dated 15.01.2020 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Jammu]

M/s Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. ……Appellant Phase-II, SIDCO Industrial Growth Centre Samba, Jammu & Kashmir-181141

VERSUS

Commissioner of Central Excise & ……Respondent Service Tax, Jammu & Kashmir

OB-32, Rail Head Complex, Jammu & Kashmir-180012

APPEARANCE:

Shri Krati Singh & Ms. Khushi Satviki, Advocates for the Appellant Shri Maheswar Maji and Ms. Amita Gupta, Authorized Representatives

for the Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 60483/2026

DATE OF HEARING: 03.07.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 03.08.2026

P. ANJANI KUMAR:

Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd., the appellant, procured duty paid

inputs cleared by units which availed exemption Notification No.01/2010-CE dated 06.02.2010; Revenue was of the view that CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs cleared by such units was not admissible before the amendment in Rule 12 by way of Notification

2 E/60153/2020

No.02/2014-CE (NT) dated 20.01.2014 w.e.f. 20.01.2014. A show cause notice dated 16.10.2017 was issued demanding CENVAT credit of Rs.79,49,359/- under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 along with penalty. The CENVAT credit demand was confirmed vide OIO dated 28.03.2018 which was upheld vide impugned order dated

15.01.2018.

2. Ms. Krati Singh, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the availment of CENVAT credit on the inputs, capital goods and input services is governed by the provisions of Rules 3 & 4 of CCR, 2004 and Rule 12 in no way puts a restriction on the availment of CENVAT credit; learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding on this submission of the appellant. She submits that Rule 12 starts with a non-obstante clause thereby meaning that when there is a conflict with the other provisions, this particular provision will prevail; it cannot be construed that in view of the Rule 12 that credit can be denied even if the other conditions are satisfied; there is no conflict between Rule 3 & 12 of the CCR, 2004; both the Rules allow CENVAT credit if the duty paid nature of the inputs is established. She submits that it was held in Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. – 2017 (352) ELT 396 (Tri. Allahabad) that Rule 12 does not restrict the availment of CENVAT credit under Rule 3 ibid. She further submits that the amendment by Notification No.02/2014 is in the nature of clarification and therefore applicable retrospectively; therefore, the benefit cannot be denied. She also submits that the show cause notice covering the period 01.08.2009 to 19.01.2014 was issued invoking extended period which is not permissible; Department had

3 E/60153/2020

conduct an audit of the records of the appellants during the relevant period and also after the relevant period wherein all the records were scrutinized; in fact, audit report for the period 12.04.2016, for the period 01.04.2014 to 09.02.2015 was also issued She submits that Department has also issued various refund orders during the period and therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant has suppressed anything from the Department. She submits that the issue being in the nature of interpretation of statutes, extended

period cannot be invoked. She relies on the following cases:

 Intex Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. – 2024 (4) TMI

64- CESTAT CHANDIGARH.

 HPM Chemicalsl Fertilizers Ltd. – 2024 (8) TMI

782- CESTAT Chandigarh.

 Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. – 2016 (340) ELT 376.

 Saraswati Agro Chemicals (India) Ltd. – Final Order No.63159/2018 dated 14.09.2018

 Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. – Final Order No.A/63258/2018-SM [BR] dated 10.10.2018

 Krishi Rasayan Exports – Final Order No.A/63472/2018 dated 19.11.2018

3. Learned Authorized Representative for the Department reiterates the findings of the impugned order and relies on U