9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 1064 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of benefit under N/N. 29/2004-CE and N/N. 30/2004-CE both dated 09.07.2004 - Denial on the ground of availment of CENVAT Credit - whether the appellants can avail both the notifications and as to whether CENVAT credit is available under such circumstances? - HELD THAT - The very same issues have been deliberated by the Tribunal in number of cases - it is found that this Bench in the case of SHRIJEE LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., THANE 2013 (9) TMI 998 - CESTAT MUMBAI has held it is not a situation where the duty credit on inputs were availed in respect of exempted goods and dutiable goods simultaneously. Hence the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is not applicable in the facts of the case. The Tribunal in the case of Winsome Yarns Ltd. 2015 (9) TMI 459 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has held When an assessee does not avail of input duty credit, he has option to pay 4% duty under Notification No. 29/2004-C.E. and also the option to clear his goods at nil rate of duty under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. and when two exemption Notifications are available to an assessee, he can always opt for the Notification which is most beneficial for him and in this regard the Department cannot force the assessee to avail a particular exemption Notification. Looked at from this point of view, the Department s stand is incorrect. There are no infirmity in the simultaneous availment of benefit under both the Notifications No. 29/2004 and 30/2004 and the credit on capital goods by the appellants - appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
The issue involved is whether the appellants can avail both Notifications No.29/2004-CE and No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 and whether CENVAT credit is available on capital goods under such circumstances. Comprehensive Details: Issue 1: Availment of Notifications No.29/2004-CE and No.30/2004-CE: The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of cotton and acrylic yarn, availed CENVAT credit on capital goods. The Department objected to this, citing violation of sub-rule 4 of Rule 6 of CCR, 2004. A show-cause notice was issued seeking to recover CENVAT credit along with interest and penalty. The demand was confirmed by the OIO, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The issue was whether the appellants can avail the benefits of both notifications and whether CENVAT credit is permissible in such a scenario. Issue 2: Precedents and Tribunal Decisions: The appellant's counsel cited several judgments where the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants in similar cases. The Department's representative also relied on specific cases to support their position. Issue 3: Tribunal's Analysis and Decision: After hearing both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal found that similar issues had been addressed in previous cases. Referring to specific judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were eligible to avail benefits under both notifications and claim credit on capital goods. The Tribunal highlighted that the Department's reliance on certain cases was not applicable to the current factual matrix, and thus, set aside the impugned order. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal pronounced the decision on 22/12/2023.
|
