9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing, printing, finishing, etc. The dispute in the present proceedings started after issue of two exemption notifications i.e. Notification No. 29/2004-C.E. both dt. 09.07.2004 and Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. Central Government prescribed a concessional rate of duty on textile where cenvat credit was taken on the inputs used in the manufacture of finished textile products. Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. on the other hand prescribed full exemption to textile fabrics if no cenvat credit was taken with respect to inputs or capital goods used in the manufacture of such finished goods. It was also clarified by CBEC under circular No. 795/28/2004-CX. dated 28.07.2004 that manufacturers can avail simultaneously the benefit of notification No.29/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Assistant Commissioner was also relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority in the case of M/s. Omkar Textile Mills Ltd. holding that an amount of Rs. 15,89,173/-, representating cenvat credit, was less reversed by the appellants. Adjudicating Authority also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires Pvt. Ltd case [1995 (81) ELT 3 (SC)]. Appellants filed appeals and stay applications before Hon'ble CESTATE and Hon'ble CESTATE vide order dated 12.10.2010 in respect of five textile processors including the three present appellants, remanded the case back to the Adjudicating Authority as per para 7 and 8 of the order reproduced below. & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s again remanded the case back to the Adjudicating Authority with directions that a copy of the report dated 18.09.2009 should be given to the appellants in order to defend their case. Under the second remand proceedings copies of letters dated 18.09.2009 were sent to the appellants who approached the field formations for verification of the records but no records were made available by the field formations which confirmed the basis of Assistant Commissioners report dt. 18.09.2009 about short reversal of Rs. 15,87,173. Accordingly, appellants requested Adjudicating Authority to provide them the relevant records in order to understand as to how short reversal have been worked out by the department. Appellants kept on requesting for the basi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as any misstatement or suppression with intention to evade Central Excise duty and accordingly extended period cannot be made applicable. 7. Shri V. Sivakumar (A.R.) on the other hand argued that appellants were required to reverse the cenvat credit taken with respect to the exempted goods before the clearance. On a specific querry from the bench as to what are the basis/records on the basis of which it is now alleged by the department that there is less reversal of cenvat credit Learned AR reiterated the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. 8. After hearing both sides for sometime it is observed that appellants have worked out cenvat credit which was required to be reversed under Notification No. 30/2004-CE read with CBEC circular dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
