9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ible for the purpose of CENVAT credit or not. - appellant had not even switched to manufacture of some dutiable products. It is only by operation of law that the exempt products become subsequently dutiable. Inasmuch as the availability of credit of duty paid on the capital goods is required to be judged at the time of receipt of the capital goods, subsequent becoming of goods as dutiable on account of withdrawal of exemption would not advance the appellant's case of claim after such change in law. The appellant having used the capital goods for a period of more than four years for manufacture of exempted final products are admittedly not entitled to the CENVAT Credit of duty paid on such capital goods. As such, I find no reasons to interfe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to ceiling tiles in question in terms of Notification No.6/2002 stands withdrawn in Budget of 2006. They also pleaded that the said letter be treated as a refund application in terms of Section 11B. 2. The original adjudicating authority vide his order dated 8.12.2006 rejected the appellant's claim on the ground that inasmuch as capital goods received by them during the period in question were being exclusively used in the manufacture of exempted final product, the subsequent reversal of exemption and the said product becoming dutiable, would not revive their claim of CENVAT credit. For holding so, the original adjudicating authority relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Commissioner, Indore vs. M/s. Surya Roshni Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid on the capital goods. 3.1 I find that the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Indore vs. M/s. Surya Roshni Ltd.: 2003 (155) E.L.T. 481 (Tri.-Del.) has considered an identical position and it stands held that the eligibility to availment of credit has to be examined at the time of receipt of the capital goods in the factory. Subsequent becoming of the goods as dutiable would not revive the question of admissibility of MODVAT credit, if the same was not available at the time of receipt. Admittedly, in the present case when the capital goods were received, the final product was exempted. As such in terms of Rule 6(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the credit was not available. There is no other rule or provision of law laying that subsequently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
