9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt- Revenue Shri Mohinder Singh, Advocate for the Respondent-Assessee ORDER Per : Devender Singh The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Cotton Yarn and Yarn of Man-made Staple Fibre. During the period July 2004 to December 2004, they cleared their final products for home consumption as well as for export without payment of duty, under Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Roshni Limited vs. CCE Indore 2003 (158) ELT A273 (SC) (c) Spenta International Limited vs. CCE, Thane 2007 (216) ELT 133 (Tri. LB) (d) Brindavan Beverages Pvt. Limited vs. CCE, Meerut-II 2008 (232) ELT 475 (Tri. Delhi) 3. Ld. Advocate submits that they had started availing the benefit of Notification No. 29/2004-CE with effect from 18.06.2005. They had thus cleared the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso cleared the goods on payment of duty under Notification No. 29/2004-CE with effect from 18.06.2005. Hence, we find no fault in the finding of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that capital goods were used for manufacture of exempted and duty paid goods. In the identical circumstances, in the appellant s own case 2011 (268) ELT 318 (P&H) (Supra), the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir clearance for export where there is optional rate of duty of 4% and there is no dispute about the fact that notification No. 29/04-C.E. and 30/04-C.E. were being available during the same period simultaneously. In view of this position, it cannot be said that the capital goods, in question, had been used exclusively for the manufacture of fully exempted finished products. Under sub-rule (4) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icable to the facts of this case." 6. In view of finding of the Tribunal that the assessee availed benefit of notification under which 4% duty was payable, it cannot be held that assessee used the capital goods in manufacture of exempted goods in which case the assessee could not claim the benefit of cenvat credit under Rule 6(4). No substantial question of law arises." 6. In view of the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
