9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stantive and needs to be fulfilled before the benefit of the notification can be extended. Ld. Advocate submits that the notification considered by the Larger Bench was 1/95-C.E. whereas the notification involved in the present proceeding is 22/2003-C.E. However, he fairly agrees that the condition involved in the past notification as also in the present notification is identical - no prima facie case in favour of the appellant and as no financial hardship stands pleaded - Following decision of LAKSHMI AUTOMATIC LOOM WORKS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., TRICHY [2008 (10) TMI 57 - CESTAT CHENNAI] - Conditional stay granted. - E/2751/2009 - Stay Order Nos. 55326-55327/2013-EX(PB) - Dated:- 4-1-2013 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Shri Sahab Singh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion and had procured the same from the other manufacturer, Revenue denied the benefit of notification in question. Further, as the appellant had availed the Cenvat credit of duty paid on the said inputs, subsequently cleared by them to their 100% EOU, Revenue raised the demand for reversal of the Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The said rule require an assessee to reverse an amzzount equal to Cenvat credit taken on inputs if such inputs are removed as such. The demand so raised stand confirmed by the authorities below along with imposition of penalties, as detailed above. 5. After hearing both the sides, we have examined the applicability of Notification No. 22/2003-C.E., dated 31-3-2003. A clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. were also capital goods which were used by the assessee. Inasmuch as the above decision of the Tribunal deal with the capital goods cleared to 100% EOU after having put the said capital goods to use, we are of the view that the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the goods involved are inputs. 8. At this stage, we find that the issue is directly covered by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lakshmi Automatic Loom Works Ltd.v. CCE, Trichy reported as 2008 (232) E.L.T. 428 (Tri.-LB). While dealing with the similar Notification No. 1/95-C.E. the Larger Bench observed that removal of inputs by the recipient without reversal of credit to 100% EOU does not satisfy the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id rule applies only in case of the final products which stand cleared on payment of duty and are brought back to the factory for the purpose of carrying out the process on the same for the second time. As such we find no merit in the above plea of the ld. Advocate. 10. At this stage ld. Advocate also relies upon the provision of Rule 3(6) which is to the effect that the amount paid under sub-rule (5) shall be eligible as Cenvat credit as if it was a duty paid by the person who removed such goods under sub-rule (5). We are surprised at the above argument of the ld. Advocate inasmuch as sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 relates to duty paid under sub-rule (5) of Rule 3. When the appellant has not discharged any duty liability under sub-rule 3(5), the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
