9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch has granted exemption to various textile articles. It has been explained that the manufacturer cannot opt to pay duty under the above notification and he cannot avail cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs. The appellant, being EOU was entitled to procure inputs without payment of duty under N/N. 22/2003. A reference to this notification indicates that the exemption is granted subject to various conditions including the condition that the procedure contained in Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001. The above clearly reveals that the exemption is conditional and is not absolute - provision of Section 5A(1A) as well as the Circular dated 26.11.2010 are not applicable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of Notification No. 22/2003 dated 31.03.2003, will not be entitled to the cenvat credit and hence the refund of such cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules will not be admissible. Show cause notices were issued proposing to deny part of the refund claims. The impugned orders confirmed the finding of the lower original authority rejecting such refund claims. Aggrieved by the orders, the present appeals have been filed. 3. With the above background, heard Sh. Somesh Arora, ld. Advocate for the appellant. His submissions are summarised below: (i) Ld. Advocate submitted that the inputs were procured on payment of duty. The department is not justified in denying the cenvat credit of duty paid on such inputs for the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifferent facts and notification. On merits also, he argued that the impugned order is sustainable since the appellant was required to procure inputs without payment of duty as per Notification No. 22/2003 dated 31.03.2003. 5. In the rebuttal, ld. Advocate argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) has, in fact, discussed the issue on merit and has rejected the refund claim and hence the appeal filed by the appellant on merits may be considered. 6. After hearing both sides and on perusal of record, I find that the crux of the dispute is whether the appellant is entitled to cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs procured by them for use in the manufacture of final product in the EOU. It is not in dispute that the inputs have been procured on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A(1A) will come into play in the case of such notifications granting exemption unconditionally. The appellant, being EOU was entitled to procure inputs without payment of duty under Notification No. 22/2003. A reference to this notification indicates that the exemption is granted subject to various conditions including the condition that the procedure contained in Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001. The above clearly reveals that the exemption is conditional and is not absolute. In view of the above, it is to be concluded that provision of Section 5A(1A) as well as the Circular dated 26.11.2010 are not applicable for procurement of goods under Notification No. 22/200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
