9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... So, prima facie, it appears to us that appellant may not be eligible for the N/N. 115/75 ibid during the disputed period. The CENVAT credit availed by the appellant already stands reversed at the time of making payment of duty on clearance of final products. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/MISC/21136/2014 in E/8/2008-DB, E/828/2007-DB - Final Order No. 20112-20113 / 2018 - Dated:- 7-2-2018 - MR. JUSTICE (DR.)SATISH CHANDRA, PRESIDENT AND MR. V. PADMANABHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER Mr. Rajesh Chander Kumar, Advocate, For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, AR, For the Respondent Per : V. PADMANABHAN The present appeal filed against the Order-in-Appeal No.155/2007 dated 30.8.2007 and Order-in-Appeal No.09/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufactured in the factories are herbal extracts, spices extracts, capsules and tablets. He submits that the Notification No.115/75 ibid has been the subject matter of the case Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin : 1997 (91) ELT 538 (SC). He submits that the Notification extends the benefits to various industries including oil mill and solvent extract industries. It is his submission that Revenue has sought to bring the activities of the appellant under the solvent extracts industries; whereas, the goods manufactured are entirely different and do not fall under the above category. It is his submission that the benefit of exemption Notification No.115/75 will not be available to the appellant and hence, they w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y such as oil mill and solvent extraction industry. So, prima facie, it appears to us that appellant may not be eligible for the Notification No.115/75 ibid during the disputed period. 6.1 Be as it may, it is on record that the appellant has paid the Central Excise duty at the time of clearance of the goods and under the circumstances, the CENVAT credit cannot be denied to them. We note that in the case of Bhushan Steel Ltd. vs. CCE: 2014 (299) ELT 254 (Tri.-Del.), the Appellate Tribunal has taken the view that by debiting the CENVAT credit while paying the duty on final product, the entire CENVAT credit stands reversed. For this purpose, the Tribunal has followed the view expressed by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner vs. Narma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
