9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 906X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case, the fact is not under dispute that the appellant availed the credit at the time of receipt of the inputs which was partially used in the exempted goods but at the time of clearance of the exempted goods, they have reversed the credit. Therefore following the above Hon ble Supreme Court decision as well as the in terms of Board circular dated 8-11-2007, the appellants have complied with the condition of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E.' The denial of exemption by the first appellate authority vide impugned order is not in accordance with law. Hence, the same cannot sustain - the impugned order set aside - appeal allowed. - HON BLE MR. P. DINESHA , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MR. M. AJIT KUMAR , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edings as above, the department appears to have approached the First Appellate Authority by way of filing an appeals and the First Appellate Authority after hearing, allowed the revenue s claim and thereby allowing the department appeals. According to the FAA, it was clear from the Explanation under Notification No. 30 (supra) that the condition of the Notification as amended would prevail over the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 ( CCR for short) especially Rule 6 ibid and accordingly, findings of the original authority was held to be not legally tenable. It is the case of the FAA that any compliance under Rule 6 ibid in violation of the clear and unambiguous provisions of CCR, as also under the Notification (supra) could not be equ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case, the denial of exemption benefit of Notification No. 30 supra was in order ? 8. We have considered the order relied upon by the Ld. Advocate and we have carefully gone through the materials placed on record. After considering rival contentions, the co-ordinate Bench has relied on the decision of Apex court in Bombay Dyeing (Supra) and held as under: 5. As per the above decision, the Apex Court held that if the credit is reversed without utilisation at any stage, the notification should be allowed. Accepting the view of the Supreme Court judgment, the Board also clarified the issue. The said circular is reproduced below :- Circular No. 858/16/2007-CX, dated 8-11-2007 Subject : Clarification regarding Circular No. 845/03/2007-CX, date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that if Cenvat credit is taken on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods falling under these Chapters, then the manufacturer shall reverse the credit so taken. 3. In view of the above, it is clarified that para-2 of the said circular stands amended to the extent that in case, credit taken on inputs used in the manufacture of the said goods cleared under Notification No. 14/2002-C.E. or Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., has been reversed before utilization, it would amount to credit not having been taken. From the above circular also, the Board has clarified that if the credit of inputs used in the exempted goods under Notification No. 30/2004 is reversed before utilisation, it would amount to credit not having been taken. Accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
