9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1060X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court of Bombay in the case of REPRO INDIA LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 2007 (12) TMI 209 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that assessee can remove the exempted goods on furnishing bond and clearance would come under the ambit of Rule 6(6)(v) of CCR 2004 and there is no need to reverse CENVAT Credit. The issue is squarely covered by the above decision of this Bench. The Revenue has not come up with any submission that the facts are different in the present appeals. On going through the records, it is seen that the present appeals are on account of the periodical showcase notices issued to the appellant on the same issue. Appeal allowed. - HON BLE MR R. MURALIDHAR , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MR A. K. JYOTISHI , MEMBER ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Therefore, he submits that they are fully compliant with Rule 6(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. As per these Rules, if the manufacturer maintains records of inputs going into dutiable and exempted goods and no CENVAT credit is taken for the inputs which are used in the exempted finished goods, the condition of Rule 6 (2) of CCR 2004 is fully met. Therefore, the department is in error in demanding reversal of CENVAT credit in terms of Rule 6 (3)(1) of CCR 2004. He further submits that the issue is no more resintegra. This Bench in their own case has held that no CENVAT reversal is required. He relies on the following case law: 1) Mylon Laboratories Ltd Vs CCT Visakhapatnam [2019(11) TMI 952-CESTAT Hyd] 2) Matrix Laboratories ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re credit is availed only based on the actual use, the question of reversal under Rule.6 does not arise as has been held in the case of IPCA laboratories Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore [2015-TIOL-1097-CESTAT-DEL]. As far as the CENVAT Credit on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods which are exported is concerned, he would submit that Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Repro India Limited vs. Union of India [2009(235)E.L.T. 614 (Bom.)] has held that assessee can remove the exempted goods on furnishing bond and clearance would come under the ambit of Rule 6(6)(v) of CCR 2004 and there is no need to reverse CENVAT Credit. This decision was followed by this Bench in several cases. The third point of dispute is whether goods cleared u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
