intimate to the Range Superintendent, in writing, the description of the dutiable as well as exempted goods, CENVAT credit of the input lying in the balance as on the date of exercising the option. The Assistant Commissioner found that at the beginning of the financial year, the assessee was at liberty to pay duty as per the provision of Rule 6(3)(i) or 6(3)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. He held that it is amply clear from the facts and circumstances of the case that the assessee opted to pay the duty in terms of Rule 6(3)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Since it is a well-reputed company, it cannot be said that they were not aware of the rules and regulations prevailing in the disputed period. They may say that it was a mistake but that stand or contention has no force. The specific finding is that in terms of the Explanation to Rule 6(3)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the assessee cannot switch to the other option in midst of the financial year. Thus, this claim is an after-thought and by switching the options, the assessee is seeking to derive benefit. Hence, the claim of re-credit of Rs.17,29,019/- is incorrect and inadmissible.
