9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on availing the credit in respect of capital goods used in manufacture of exempted goods shall apply only if the capital goods are used for two years from the date of installation/commencement of production - As per the facts of the present case, though the appellant received and installed the capital good in their running unit in November, 2014 but before completion of two years, in August, 2016 the capital good was used for manufacture of goods which were cleared on payment of duty, availing the exemption N/N. 29/2004-CE. Therefore, the capital goods was not used continuously for two years for manufacture of exclusively exempted goods. Since the amendment is by way of substitution, it will be applicable from the retrospective effect. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und Chouhan, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that even though the appellant was availing the notification no. 30/2004-CE, but the goods manufactured per se were not exempted. He also submits that they started clearing the same goods under notification 29/2004-CE from August 2016. Therefore, it cannot be said that the capital goods was used exclusively for manufacture of exempted goods. He submits that this issue, particularly related to notification no. 29/2004-CE and 30/2004-CE, has been considered in various following judgment of this Tribunal/High Court: 1. Commr. of C.Ex., Madurai vs. Eastman Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. 2011(271) E.L.T. 256 (Tri- Chennai) 2. S.T. Cottex Exports (P) Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase. 3. Shri S.N. Gohil, Ld. Supdt. (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that after receipt of capital goods it was used for manufacture of exclusively exempted goods. Therefore as per Rule 6(4) prevailing at the relevant time, the appellant was not entitled for the CENVAT Credit. 4. I have heard both sides and perused the records. I find that though Rule 6(4) was amended by notification 13/2016- CE (N.T.) 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) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cement of production. As per the facts of the present case, though the appellant received and installed the capital good in their running unit in November, 2014 but before completion of two years, in August, 2016 the capital good was used for manufacture of goods which were cleared on payment of duty, availing the exemption notification 29/2004-CE. Therefore, the capital goods was not used continuously for two years for manufacture of exclusively exempted goods. Since the amendment is by way of substitution, it will be applicable from the retrospective effect. This view is supported by decisions as follows: 1. Zile Singh Vs. State of Haryana ors. 2004 (10) TMI 553 (SC) 2. Govt. of India vs. Indian Tobacco Co. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
