9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial Member Ms. Neethu James, Advocate, For the Appellant Shri Madhupsharan, Asst. Commissioner(AR), For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 05/04/2010 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has allowed the Department appeal by setting aside the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 29 / 30 of CETA, 1085 and are availing the facilities of CENVAT credit of duty paid on input services and capital goods used in relation to manufacture and clearance of final products. During the course of audit of their boo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of exemption. She further submitted that this issue has been settled in favour of the assessee by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of TAFE Limited (Tractor Division) Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2007(210) ELT 571 (Tri. Bang.)] wherein the Tribunal has held that final products which were chargeable to duty subsequently exempted from duty and the credit has already been taken validly when final product was dutiable, then its benefit is available to the manufacturers without any limitation in time or otherwise unless the manufacturer itself chooses not to use raw material in its excisable product. This decision of the Tribunal was confirmed by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka which is reported in 2011(268) ELT 49 (Kar.) and al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel for the appellant submitted that the Madras High Court in the case of Tractor and Farm Equipment Ltd. Vs. Commissioner (supra) has already considered the Albert David decision and has disapproved the same and the Karnataka High Court in the case of TAFE Ltd. has categorically held that the appellant is not required to reverse the CENVAT credit taken on inputs lying in stock and contained in work in progress and finished goods as on the date of exemption. 5. Therefore, respectfully following the ratios of the above decisions, I am of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside by allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential reliefs if any. (Order pronounced on 11/10/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
