9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of GARUDA COTEX SHADES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT [ 2013 (4) TMI 619 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] where it was held that If the job work is considered as non-exempted and the CENVAT credit is allowed on the inputs which are used on such job work items, there are no valid reason to deny the CENVAT credit of Central Excise duty paid on capital goods, which were received by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kers are exempted under Notification No. 214/86-CE. 2. Ld. Counsel pointed that the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Garuda Cotex Shades Limited 2012 (284) ELT 716 (Tri. Ahmd) wherein identical issue has been decided. 3. Ld. AR relies on the impugned order. 4. I have considered the rival submissions. In the case of Garuda Cotex Shades Limited (supra) while deciding identical iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the adjudicating authority has totally mis-directed his findings on this point. We reproduce the findings of the adjudicating authority in the Paragraph 32, which reads as under : 32. Further, I find that I do not find any justification that the goods manufactured by Job worker basis are exempted goods. Notification No. 214/86- Cus., dated 25-3-1986 as amended was issued for saving the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reproduced paragraph that the adjudicating authority in one breath holds that the Central Excise duty paid on the inputs which are utilized for manufacturing of job work goods, is eligible to the appellant as such goods which are manufactured under job work are not exempted. At the same time, he denies the CENVAT credit of the Excise duty on the capital goods, holding that the capital goodswere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
