9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cture of Excisable Goods) Rules 2001 are not to be considered as exempted goods and therefore, there is no need to reverse credit under Rule 6(3)(i) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - the said judgment was carried in SLP before the Apex Court which was dismissed in the case of UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS VERSUS M/S. HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. [2014 (5) TMI 253 - SUPREME COURT]. There is no requirement for reversal of CENVAT credit - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/30568/2017 - A/30549/2018 - Dated:- 2-5-2018 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Shri P.S. Reddy, Asst. Commissioner/AR for the Appellant. Shri N. Ram Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent. ORDER 1. This appeal is filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut payment of duty under Annexure-45 by availing benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-CE, dated 17.03.2012. The appellant has submitted that the goods were cleared by them in terms of Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 (CER 2001) and that therefore the goods do not fall within the scope of the terms 'exempted goods' as defined under Rule 2(d) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The original authority had held against the appellant basing herself on the decision of the Order-in-Appeal passed by my predecessor in OIA No. 111/2013-(H-10CE dated 15.11.2013 in appellant's own case for the earlier period. However, it has been brought to my notice during the proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same and the Bench has considered all the decisions which were cited and came to conclusion that the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee and held that the demands are unsustainable. I find no reason to interfere in such order which is relying upon the judgment of this Bench in assessee's own case. I also find that while coming to such conclusion, the Bench relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Hindustan Zinc Limited and the said judgment was carried in SLP before the Apex Court which dismissed the same as reported at [2014 (303) ELT 321 (S.C)]. The grounds of appeal taken in the appeal memorandum have not controverted the factual position. Accordingly, I find that the impugned order i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
