TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of Notification No. 29 and 30/2004 and as to whether they are eligible for availing benefit of both the notifications simultaneously along with the Cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable and non-dutiable Excisable goods and reversed subsequently. The assessee submits that any provision of 6(3)(vi) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 exempts the manufacturers of textile products falling under Chapter 50-63 of the CET from maintaining separate books of accounts. They had applied the provision in letter and spirit of law by reversing the credit taken on the exempted goods and hence, they are eligible for the benefit of the Notifications. However, the Commissioner did not agree with their submissions and denied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Reid and Taylor by Final Order No. 866/06 dated 5-5-06. The finding recorded in Para 4 to 6 is reproduced herein below : 4.The learned Advocate relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (F,) Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur — 1996 (81) E.L.T. 3(S.C.) wherein it is held that, on reversal of Modvat Credit, the assessee cannot be said to have taken credit of duty on the inputs utilized in the manufacture of the exempted final products. Consequently, exemption from duty is not deniable to final product even if the exemption Notification stipulates a condition that exemption to final product is not available where Modvat credit under Rule 57A taken on inputs used in the manufacture of final products in question. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e through the records of the case carefully. Even though the appellants have not maintained separate accounts, they have reversed the credit taken and attributable to the goods cleared free of duty before the removal of the goods from the factory. The Chandrapur case is squarely applicable because in that view of the matter, one can safely say that no input credit had been availed. Hence, the condition of non-availment of input credit in respect of Notification 30/2004 is satisfied. The QIA cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. We allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any. 5. Furthermore, the point raised by the learned JCDR has been answered in the judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Hello Mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
