9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1249 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of CENVAT Credit - specified inputs and capital goods - Contravention of Rule 4(1), 6 & 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - benefit of exemption Notification No.30/2004-CE, dt.09.07.2004 - Held that - issue is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bhilosa Industries Pvt.Ltd. (2014 (10) TMI 809 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD). - Following this decision. impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
Interpretation of exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE, applicability of extended period for invoking penalties, imposition of penalties. Analysis: The Appellants were involved in the manufacturing of various types of yarn classified under Chapter 54 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing CENVAT Credit but were found to have contravened Central Excise Rules by not correctly discharging duty liability, failing to observe registration rules, and wrongly availing exemption benefits. The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the Appellants in a similar case, citing the decision in Bhilosa Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE Vapi. The main issues to be deliberated were whether the Appellants were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE despite having multiple factories, the applicability of the extended period for invoking penalties, and whether penalties should be imposed. The interpretation of key expressions in the notification, such as "Yarns procured from outside," "Subjected to any process by the manufacturer," and "Who does not have the facilities in his factory for the manufacture of filament yarns of Chapter 54," was crucial to determining eligibility for the exemption. The Tribunal, following the precedent set in the Bhilosa Industries Pvt. Ltd. case, set aside the impugned order and allowed all the appeals. The Tribunal's decision was based on the differing interpretations by the Revenue and the Appellants regarding the expressions used in the notification. The application for early hearing of the appeal was dismissed as infructuous, concluding the judgment.
|
