9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h was being made on cotton and man made fabric supplied by their customers. The applicant received fabric from their customer and after embroidering the cloth with yarn, the embroidered cloth was returned back to the customer, on payment of duty. 1. Prior to 1-3-2003, the appellant was covered under scheme of compounded levy for the purpose of Central Excise duty @ Rs. 45/- per metre length of machine per shift. With the budgetary changes made in Finance Bill 2003, compounded levy scheme was withdrawn and the appellant was required to discharge Central Excise duty on the embroidered cloth on ad valorem basis BED @ 10% adv. and AEDTT @ 15% of BED. However, the appellant was allowed to continue working under compounded levy scheme for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04 exemption was granted to embroidery on cloth, thus the appellant's only final product being manufactured was no more chargeable to duty was required to reverse Cenvat Credit pertaining to the stocks of cloth yarn on which credit was originally availed, lying in balance as such or contained in semi-finished or finished goods. 6. A show cause notice was issued to reverse the Cenvat credit pertaining to the stocks of cloth and yarn on which Cenvat credit was originally availed, lying in balance either as such or contained in semi-processed or finished goods alleging that the appellant has not furnished to the Department, the position of stocks as mentioned above, lying with the appellant as on the date on which their product became ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne and give effect to orders of higher appellate authorities, which are binding on them. 14. Heard. 15. On careful examination of the submissions made by the learned Advocate. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order himself is found merit in the arguments of the appellant that the case of the appellant is covered by the Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Pune (Supra) wherein this Tribunal has held that the Cenvat credit on input used for carrying out job work cannot be denied on the ground that the final products were exempted from payment of duty under job work Notification No. 214/86-C.E. The same has been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay reported in 2009 (244) E.L.T. A89 (Bom.) but the Commissioner (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
