TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e or quantum of the clearances. Inasmuch in the present case, the appellants’ final product became unconditionally exempt and the exemption was not dependent upon the value or quantum of clearance in a financial year, it has to be held that the said Rule 9(2) is not applicable. In fact, I find that the provisions were subsequently changed in the new CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002, with the introduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which, he has upheld the confirmation of demands by holding that the appellants are liable to reverse the earned CENVAT credit when their final product became exempted. 2. It is seen that all the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of garden tools falling under Chapter 82 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by various decisions of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. One such reference can be made to the Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE v. Ashok Iron and Steel Fabricators [2002 (140) E.L.T. 277 (Tribunal-LB)], upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in 2003 (156) E.L.T. A212 (S.C.). It stands held that when the final product becoming exempted there is no legal requirement of reversing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the duty based upon a Notification relatable to value or quantum of the clearances. Inasmuch in the present case, the appellants final product became unconditionally exempt and the exemption was not dependent upon the value or quantum of clearance in a financial year, it has to be held that the said Rule 9(2) is not applicable. In fact, I find that the provisions were subsequently changed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
