9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Ravindra Narain, Adv For the Respondent : Shri M S Negi, DR ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal. 2. This is the second round of litigation. In the earlier round of litigation appeal of the appellant was allowed by this Tribunal. The order of this Tribunal which was challenged by Revenue before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the Hon'ble High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing in stock either as such or in process as contained in the final product. This reversal is not in dispute. But there was a balance accumulated credit of Rs. 5,27,97,614/- hence the said credit was not reversed and remain to be continued as credit in their books of accounts. Subsequently when the final product became dutiable w.e.f. 01.03.2002 the appellant started utilization of said credit for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the matter back to this Tribunal for consideration that whether the appellant is required to comply with provisions of Rule 57H(7) ibid in the light of the notification under which it availed exemption. Hence this case. 4. The Ld, Counsel for the appellant submits that Rule 57H(7) refers to exemption notification based on value of quantity and clearance in a financial year and the notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Credit account lapse as per Rule 571-1(7) ibid on 01.03.2000 that when their product became exempted under notification no. 7/2000 dated 01.03.2000 or not. For better appreciation Rule 57H(7) is explained hereunder: "Rule 57H(7): A manufacturer who opts for exemption from the whole of the duty of excise leviable on goods manufactured by him under a notification based on the value or quantity o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g in their Cenvat Credit account shall lapse. But in the case in hand, the final product of the appellant became exempted under notification no.07/2000 dated 01.03.2000 wholly and same is not on the basis of the value or quantity of clearance by the appellant. Therefore, we hold that provisions of Rule 57H(7) ibid are not applicable to the facts of the case. Therefore, Cenvat Credit of Rs. 5,67,97 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
