9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per the facts, the respondent has claimed the cenvat credit on the inputs lying in stock as on 30.06.2017 which shows that the inputs on which the cenvat credit was claimed have not been used in manufacture of goods cleared under Notification No. 30/2004-CE, therefore, such credit cannot be denied. As per the condition of the N/N. 30/2004-CE, it is clear that the said condition is applicable only in respect of those inputs which were used in the manufacture of excisable goods which is cleared under N/N. 30/2004-CE - In the present case the inputs lying in stock as on 30.06.2017 were not used in the manufacture of excisable goods which were cleared under N/N. 30/2004-CE. For the obvious reason that those inputs were used in the manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty Commissioner (AR) appeared for the Appellant Shri Jitendra Singh, Advocate and Shri Ankit Totuka, Advocate appeared for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR This appeal is arising out of Order-In- Appeal No. CCESA- SRT(APPEAL)/PS-045/2020-21 dated 03.08.2020 whereby the Order-In-Original was set aside and the respondent s appeal was allowed. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the Revenue. 2. The issue involved in the present case are as under:- 1. Whether the Commissioner Appeals has erred in allowing admissibility of cenvat credit of Rs.11,06,166/- on inputs lying in stock as on 30.06.2017 and which have been used in manufacture of finished goods which have been cleared on payment of GST post 30.06.2017. 2. Whether the Commissioner App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 11,06,166/- it is in respect of the inputs lying in stock as on 30.06.2017 which have been used in the manufacture of finished goods which have been cleared on payment of GST post 30.06.2017. He submits that this credit is not attributed to any input used in the manufacture of goods cleared under Notification No. 30/2004-CE. Therefore, this credit is clearly admissible to the respondent. 4.1 As regard the second issue of admissibility of cenvat credit of Rs. 1,86,97,492/- on capital goods as per Rule 6 (4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the respondent was not entitled to take credit for 2 years from the date of commencement of commercial production. He submits that the respondent has not availed the cenvat credit of capital goods till 30.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods has to be determined on the date of receipt of goods which was not raised in the show cause notice. Hence, the adjudication order and order in review is beyond the show cause notice and deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. He also takes support from the impugned order. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- ASHA CELLULOID VS CCE [1998 (98) E.L.T. 769 (Tribunal)] SRI NATARAJAN INDUSTRIES VS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., COIMBATORE (2000 (123) E.L.T. 1016 (Tribunal)] 5. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. We find that in the revenue s appeal it was contended that the cenvat credit on inputs is not available to the respondent in terms of Rule 6 (1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which were used in the manufacture of excisable goods which is cleared under Notification No. 30/2004-CE. In the present case the inputs lying in stock as on 30.06.2017 were not used in the manufacture of excisable goods which were cleared under Notification No. 30/2004-CE. For the obvious reason that those inputs were used in the manufacture of goods on which GST was applicable. Therefore, the entire basis of the Revenue that only due to availing the exemption Notification No. 30/2004-CE , the cenvat credit is not admissible, is devoid of merit and without any legal basis. Therefore, we are of the view that the cenvat credit on inputs was rightly allowed by the Learned Commissioner. 5.2 As regard the cenvat credit on capital goods , we fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecause the respondent have been availing the exemption notification however the exemption notification was rescinded on 30.06.2017 and immediately thereupon the respondent became entitled for the cenvat credit on capital goods. Therefore, the said cenvat credit is admissible to the respondent. Moreover, thereafter the capital goods has been used for the manufacture of goods which is not exempted and liable for payment of GST. Despite giving independent finding as above we also agree with the detailed finding given by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, in our considered view, the respondent is entitled for the cenvat credit on inputs as well as on capital goods. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order is sustained. Revenue s appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
