9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... geable to duty at the rate of 8% - Held that:- there is no doubt that at the time of receipt of capital goods, the final products of the appellant were chargeable to nil rate of duty and therefore these capital goods fall within the purview of sub rule 4 of rule 6 and hence not entitled to Cenvat credit. The only weak argument advanced by the appellant is that the credit has been taken in the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent ORDER This appeal is directed against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) dated 23rd of May 2008. The appellant is a manufacturer of asbestos cement sheets falling under chapter 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. These goods were chargeable to nil rate of duty up to 28/02/2006. W.e.f. 1st of March 2006 the goods manufactured by the appellant became chargeable to Central excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants is that their final product became dutiable during the financial year 2005 - 2006 and the capital goods have been received in the appellants unit during the same financial year. Accordingly they have prayed that they will be entitled to the CENVAT credit of duty paid on the capital goods. 3. It is seen that sub rule 4 of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules provides as follows: No Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that this is not a valid reason to permit such credits. 5. We find that Larger Bench of this Tribunal had occasion to examine a similar question in the case of Spenta International Ltd versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane which is reported in 2007(216) ELT. 133(Tri-LB) in which it has been held that credit eligibility is to be determined with reference to the duty liability of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
