9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 824X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant are registered 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of bulk drugs. They have received various inputs, capital goods and input services from different manufacturers of goods and providers of service. They have availed credit on these goods and services. The main issue in E/A No. 51216 of 2017 is with reference to eligibility of credit itself. The other four appeals are on the proceedings which are consequent to such view held by the Revenue with reference to non entitlement of credit for the appellant. 3. The Revenue held a view that the appellant being an EOU is eligible to get goods and services without payment of duty/ tax. Hence, the question of allowing any cenvat credit on such inp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puts and services. (d) The reliance placed by the lower authority on the decision of Bombay High Court in Sandoz Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India -2016 (341) ELT 22 (Bom.) is not relevant to decide the present issue. The High Court was dealing with the challenge to the Circular dated 15.03.2013 issued by the DGFT. Presently, the contention of the appellant is that the circular itself is not relevant to decide their issue. 4. Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue supported the finding of the lower Authorities. He submitted that when exemption is provided to the supplies to EOU there is no question of not availing such exemption and opting for credit and refund. He supported the finding of the lower authorities on merit. 5. We have heard both sides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2/2003 which is subject matter of dispute covering the inputs and capital goods. The said notification, admittedly, contain various conditions including bond etc. to be fulfilled by the manufacturer supplier of such goods to the EOU. As such, it is apparent that such elaborate conditions when stipulated, not followed by the manufacturer supplier will not attract the provision of Section 5A (1A). In any case, the point is even if it is admitted for argument that the supplier had violated the said provision, the appellant as recipient of duty paid goods cannot be put to adverse finding. This has been consistently held by the Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court in various decisions. 7. On the above finding, we refer to the decision of the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arvesh Refractories (P) Ltd. v. CCE &Cus reported in 2007 (218) ELT 488 (SC)" The above decision of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Rajasthan High Court by an order dated 20.04.2016. The Board had accepted the said finding of the High Court vide heir Circular dated 16.02.2018. 8. On the above proposition, the Revenue contended that the said decision is not applicable to the present case. A distinction is sought to be made on the ground that the Notification No. 44/2001 was issued under Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 whereas the present Notification No. 22/2003 is issued under Section 5A. We note the ratio adopted by the Tribunal is on legal principle. Regarding application of Section 5A (1A) to the present case we have already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
