9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0% EOU status. We also find that the appellants discharged appropriate duties on the stock of inputs lying and on the capital goods and availed credit as they continued as DTA unit in the same premises. first proviso to Sub-rue (1) of Rule 3, stipulates that the credit should be allowed on the duty paid on the capital goods at the time of de-bonding of the unit and in terms of para-8 of Notification No. 22/2003. Prima facie, the applicant has made out a strong case for waiver of pre-deposit relates to the interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules and the proviso for availing cenvat credit on the capital goods at the time of de-bonding - Stay granted. - E/40187/2014 - MISC. ORDER No. 41472/2014 - Dated:- 26-8-2014 - Shri P.K. Das and Shri R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the adjudicating authority has denied the cenvat credit availed on the excise duty paid on the inputs and on the capital goods lying in stock, at the time of de-bonding, by wrongly interpreting the First Proviso to Rule 3 (1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He submits that the said proviso only permits to take credit of central excise duty paid on capital goods de-bonded in terms of Notification No. 22/2003-CE and it has not barred the credit of duties paid on imported capital goods or on indigenous raw materials. The above proviso is only an enabling provision inserted in Rule 3 of CCR to allow the credit and not intended to disallow the credit. He relied upon the Boards Circular No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dis-allowed the credit as per the first proviso to Rule 3 (1) of CCR. As such, the proviso specifically provides that cenvat credit shall be allowed to be taken of the amount of duty paid on capital goods at the time of de-bonding of the unit in terms of para-8 of the Notification No. 22/2003. 5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that there is no dispute on the fact that the appellants are registered as an 100% EOU for manufacture of Carbon Brushes falling under Chapter Sub-heading 8545 2000 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On perusal of the final exit order dated 23.02.2012 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, MEPZ Special Economic Zone and HEOUs, Chennai, that after obtaining no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
