9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring both exempted goods i.e. the e-bikes and dutiable goods i.e. the parts of e-bikes; it is not the case of the Department that the appellant is only manufacturing exempted goods and therefore, the contention of the appellant that they are following the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is acceptable. There are no applicability of Rule 11(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in the instant case. This bench of the Tribunal in M/S AVON CYCLES LIMITED AND M/S HERO CYCLES LIMITED held that ' As we hold that the provisions of Rule 6(3) are applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, we hold that provisions of Rule 11(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules are not applicable to the facts of the present case.' Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tilization for payment of duty on any other final products whether cleared for home consumption or for export, or for payment of service tax on any output service provided in India or exported and therefore, the clearances affected by the assessee by debiting the amount from this lapsed credit are not in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.; accordingly, a show cause notice dated 02.11.2010 was issued to the appellant asking to show cause as to why the central excise duty of Rs.4,89,693/- should not be recovered from them along with interest and penalty; the show cause notice was confirmed vide Order-in-Original dated 21.06.2011 and was upheld by the impugned order dated 30.09.2013. Hence, the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... man Mittal, the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 6. We find that the this issue is no longer res integra being decided in favour of the appellant by this Bench of the Tribunal vide the Final Order cited above where the appellant was manufacturing both exempted goods i.e. the e-bikes and dutiable goods i.e. the parts of e-bikes; it is not the case of the Department that the appellant is only manufacturing exempted goods and therefore, the contention of the appellant that they are following the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is acceptable. 7. We do not find applicability of Rule 11(3) of the Cenvat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
