9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvoices and after processing, the clearance was done on payment of duty under the cover of Central Excise invoices and ARE-1s on making necessary entries. Necessary monthly returns also seem to have been filed. The show cause notice was issued on 4-5-2007, whereas the clearance of grey fabrics were made on 30-4-2002 and 2/3-5-2002, i.e. after five years. Therefore, invoking the extended period of limitation in this case is not justified - Decided in favor of the assessee - E/1403-1404/2009 - A/795/2011-WZB/AHD, - Dated:- 24-3-2011 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Dr. P. Babu, JJ. Shri Willington Christian, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.S. Srova, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P. Babu, Member (T)]. The appellant is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposited the duty demanded i.e. Rs. 7,52,919/- though the penalty was not deposited. 3. We have considered the various submissions of the Revenue as well as of the appellants. As per Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2002, under which the credit was availed, the manufacturer of processed fabrics is entitled to avail deemed cenvat credit to the extent of 66.67% of the duty payable on finished goods. It is not a pre-requisite that there should be a co-relation between the inputs, in this case, grey fabrics and the duty paid invoices or the inputs. The department, however, accepted 33.33% of duty paid in cash. Therefore, benefit of deemed credit under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. (N.T.), cannot be denied. 4. In this context, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal in the case of CCE, Nasik v. Jain Irrigation System Limited - 2008 (227) E.L.T. 587 (Tri. - Mumbai), also observed that - We are not for a moment suggesting that the applicant could have taken the credit in spite of final goods being exempted all that we have said is that on payment of duty on the final product, which was not otherwise payable, the assessee shall be deemed to have reversed the credit taken by them, which in another word would amount to not taking the credit at all. Thus, there is no mistake in out order on this account. It is the acceptable fact that the appellants are eligible for the deemed cenvat credit on the processed fabrics cleared by them and for availing deemed cenvat credit, it is not required to prove that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
