9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstant case the fact that the capital goods are installed during 2016-17 is not disputed. The only dispute that is raised by the Revenue is that during 2016-17 the appellant has either cleared the goods availing the exemption under notification 30/2004 or exported the goods under bond under rule 19. It appears that the impugned order fails to take into consideration the amended rule which is very clear that credit is not admissible if the said capital goods are utilized exclusively in the manufacture of exempted goods for a period of two years from the date of commencement of commercial production or from the date of installation of capital goods. In the instant case, the capital goods are installed after commencement of production in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. Some part of the goods were however cleared on payment of duty during the year 2017-18 but pursuant to an audit conducted the Department opined that the credit availed by the appellant was not available to them as they have cleared the goods without payment of duty availing exemption under notification 30/2004. A show cause notice dated April 11, 2018 was issued dissolving credit of ₹ 1,40,72,105/-. The show cause notice has been dropped by the original authority vide order dated October 4, 2019. On appeal filed by the Department Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the impugned order dated July 27, 2018 setting aside the order of the original authority and confirming the duty as demanded in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is evident from the records that the appellant has utilized the capital goods for manufacture of final products cleared on payment of duty in 2017-18. He submits that this is evident from the ER-1 filed for the month of June 2017. Further, he submits that in view of the amendment credit of capital goods is allowable. He places reliance on the following cases: i) Welspun India Limited vs Commissioner, CE ST, Surat, 2019 (9) TMI 88-CESTAT Ahmedabad ii) Sutlej Textiles Industries Limited vs. Commissioner, CE ST, Surat, 2020 (5) TMI 95-CESTAT Ahmedabad. iii) Mohit Industries Limited vs. CCE ST, Surat-I, 2019 (11) TMI 292-CESTAT Ahmedabad. 4. Learned counsel submits that Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted under bond in terms of Rule 6(6)(v) of CENVAT credit rules. He also relies upon the following case laws: i) CCE vs. Drish Shoes Ltd. 2010 (254) ELT 417 (HP) ii) Sangam India Ltd. Ors. vs. CC ST, Udaipur, 2018 (1) TMI 1012-CESTAT New Delhi iii) Kanchan India Ltd. Ors. vs. Commissioner, CGST CE, Udaipur, 2020 (1) TMI 278-CESTAT New Delhi 6. Learned authorised representative for the Department reiterates the findings of the impugned order and submits that the goods manufactured by the appellant cleared for home consumption as well as for export remained fully exempted in terms of notification no. 30/2004-C dated July 9, 2004, hence, the CENVAT credit of capital goods used for the manufacture of such goods cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmercial production or from the date of installation of capital goods. In the instant case, the capital goods are installed after commencement of production in the year 2016-17. The credit would have been inadmissible to the appellant if they have continued to clear exempted goods till 2018-19. However, records of the case indicate that the appellant has cleared goods on payment of duty during 2017-18 as evidenced by the ER-1 filed for the month of June 2017. Therefore, in view of the amended provisions the credit is admissible to the appellant. We find that the provisions of the amended rule 6(4) have been brought out by the Tribunal in the case of Welspun India Limited (Supra) wherein it was held that: 4 As per the above substit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
