9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1043X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... using the brand name ‘Shukla’. It is seen the appellants are clearing waste and scrap in the domestic market and the value of waste and scrap cleared by them in the domestic area was within the limit prescribed under notification 08/2003-CE. Consequently, it is apparent that the appellants were entitled for the notification 08/2003-CE in respect of waste and scrap cleared by them - Thus, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that during the period 2010-11 to 2014-15, the appellant had availed 100% credit on capital goods received in the same year in which the said capital goods were received. Consequently, demand Show Cause Notice was issued seeking reversal of 50% of the said credit on the ground that the appellant s could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further pointed that even if the appellants were not eligible for 100% credit in the first year of receipt of goods, the balance 50% credit would have been available in the next year. Thus, there is no loss of revenue and if at all, only demand of interest for the intervening period can be raised. 2.3 Ld. Counsel further pointed out that they are manufacturing all goods for export except waste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. I have gone through rival submissions. I find that the allegation has been made that the appellants are using brand name Shukla in respect of medication equipment exported by them and, thus, they are not entitled to notification 08/2003 and consequently, they are not entitled to avail 100% CENVAT Credit on capital goods in the first year of procurement. I find that the appellant have denied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
