9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 09/07/2004. From April 2017, they started paying duty by opting for the concessional exemption Notification No. 29/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004. The case of the department is that at the time of receipt and installation of machines, the appellant was availing exemption notification no. 30/2004-CE. As per Rule 6 (4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, if the capital goods is used exclusively for manufacture of exempted goods, the Cenvat Credit is not admissible. The contention of the department is that since at the time of receipt of capital goods, the appellant was manufacturing exclusively exempted goods with the help of the said warping machine, they are barred from availing the Cenvat Credit on such capital goods. 2. Shri S. Suriyanaray ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led for the CENVAT Credit. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. We find that though Rule 6(4) was amended by Notification 13/2016-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2016 but the amendment is by way of substitution of Rule 6 (4). The substituted rule 6 (4) is given below: "5. In Rule 6 of the said rules,- (a) for sub-rule (1), the following........ (b) ... (g) for sub-rule (4), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely :- "(4) No CENVAT credit shall be allowed on capital goods used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted goods or in providing exempted services for a period of two years from the date of commencement of the commercial production or provision of services, as the case may be, other than the final products or out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amendment is by way of substitution, it will be applicable from the retrospective effect. This view is supported by decisions as follows: (a) Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana & Ors.- 2004 (10) TMI 553 (SC) (b) Govt. of India vs. Indian Tobacco Co.- 2005 (8) TMI 113 (SC) It is also observed that the Tribunal in various judgments, under the same set of facts and dispute related to Notifications 29/2004-CE and 30/2004-CE, held that even though initially 'Nil' rate of duty exemption under Notification 30/2004-CE has been availed and subsequently, Notification No. 29/2004-CE availed and paid the duty, the Cenvat Credit on capital goods is admissible. Some of those judgments are cited below:- (a) CCE, Madurai vs. Eastman Spinning Mills (P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
