9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B scrips had been issued in terms of 2004-2009 Foreign Trade Policy, while in this case, the duty had been paid through DEPB scrips in terms of 2002-2007 Foreign Trade Policy. However, we find that this very issue stands decided in the appellant's favour by the judgement of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Neel Kanth Rubber Mills (2010 (4) TMI 281 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT). As regards the cenvat credit of Additional Customs Duty paid through DEPB scrips in respect of the imports made under notification no.34/97-Cus, this issue also stands decided in favour of the appellant's own case for the previous period by the Final Order passed by the Tribunal [2015 (7) TMI 315 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - Impugned orders are not sus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e benefit of the cenvat credit in terms of the notification no.96/2004-Cus would be available only when the import had been made against DEPB scrips issued in terms of 2004-2009 Foreign Trade Policy, the appellant would not be eligible for cenvat credit. In one case the import was made during the period prior to 17.1.2004 by availing the exemption under notification no.34/97-Cus against DEPB Scrips and in respect of that import also, the department was of the view that the cenvat credit of additional customs duty paid through DEPB scrips would not be admissible. It is on this basis that the Astt. Commissioner/Joint commissioner by two separate orders confirmed the cenvat credit demands of ₹ 3,27,959/- and ₹ 12,37,579/- against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l order dated 27.2.2014 in the appellant's own case, the impugned orders are not correct. 4. Shri Pramod Kumar, ld. Departmental Representative defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. So far as the cenvat credit of Additional Customs duty paid through DEPB scrips issued under 2002-2007 Foreign Trade Policy in respect of the imports made under notification no.96/2004-Cus is concerned, the only objection of the Department is that while in terms of notification no.96/2004-CE, the benefit of the cenvat credit of additional customs duty paid through DEPB scrips would be admissible only if DEPB scrips h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PB scrips in respect of the imports made under notification no.34/97-Cus, this issue also stands decided in favour of the appellant's own case for the previous period by the Final Order passed by the Tribunal being no.50852/2014 dated 27.2.2014, which is reproduced below:- After hearing both the sides, duly represented by Shri J.P. Kaushik, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri R.K. Mishra, ld. Departmental Representative for Revenue, I find that the short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the appellants, who have paid the Additonal Custom Duty through DEPB are entitled to avail the CENVAT credit of the same or not. By adjudication, a show cause notice dated 29.12.2005, for the period July, 2004 to September, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
