9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 3(1), respondents was not eligible for availing credit, it has to noted that once the respondent is treated as manufacturer, he is eligible to take the credit - Since all the goods manufactured have been exported, question of payment of duty or availing exemption, does not arise - It is settled law that export goods cannot be treated as exempted goods - Therefore, credit is available to the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectly to the respondent unit were duty paid. Respondents took the cenvat credit of duty paid on such material and during the period from 12.07.2003 to 11.08.2003, amount of credit taken was Rs. 7,32,804/- The department took a view that since the respondent was a job worker, they were not entitled to cenvat credit under Rule 3(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and accordingly, proceedings were i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Credit Rules, the duty demand has to be sustained. He also reiterates the submissions in the grounds of appeal that observations of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the department s appeal travelled beyond the show cause notice has not been explained by him in the order. 3. However, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the ground taken in the show cause notice was th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is what has been done in this case. In respect of exports, the manufacturers are eligible to take credit and therefore, there was nothing wrong in availment of cenvat credit by the respondents. 4. I have considered the submission made by both sides. First of all the show cause notice has proposed demand of duty only on the ground that appellant was a job worker and therefore the goods m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d goods. On this ground also, credit is available to the respondents. Further, I also take note of the fact that learned Commissioner has correctly considered and interpreted the provisions of notification No. 52/2000-CE dated 19.10.2000. Therefore, on merits also I find that Revenue has not been able to make out a case. In view of the discussions above, appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. Cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
