9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
2014 (8) TMI 916 - AT - Central ExciseWaiver of predeposit of duty - Accumulation of CENVAT Credit - manufacture of cotton yarn - exemption vide Notification No.30/2004 dt.9.7.2004 - Held that - It is seen from the SCN that the proceedings were initiated on the ground that as per Notification No.30/2004 dt. 9.7.2004 the applicant cannot accumulate any cenvat credit on the inputs or capital goods. Prima facie I find that Notification No.30/04 read with corrigendum dt. 9.7.2004 restriction was imposed only in respect of the goods where are credit of duty taken on inputs only. This view is also supported by the stay order of the Tribunal in the case of Arvind Ltd. Vs CCE Bangalore 2012 (9) TMI 877 - CESTAT BANGALORE . Hence the applicant made out prima facie case for waiver of predeposit of entire amount of duty along with interest and penalty. - Stay granted.
Issues:
Waiver of predeposit of duty under Notification No.30/2004 dt. 9.7.2004. Analysis: The judgment deals with multiple applications arising from a common order regarding the waiver of predeposit of duty. The applicants, engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn, sought the waiver of duty amounting to &8377; 11,13,236/- along with interest and penalty. The issue revolved around the interpretation of Notification No.30/2004 dt. 9.7.2004 and its corrigendum, which restricted the application of the exemption to goods where credit of duty on inputs only had been taken. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of the notification and corrigendum, noting that the restriction applied only to goods where credit of duty on inputs had been taken, not on capital goods. This interpretation was supported by a stay order in a similar case. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for the waiver of predeposit of the entire duty amount, interest, and penalty. Therefore, the predeposit of duty, interest, and penalty was waived, and the recovery stayed pending the disposal of the appeal. The stay applications were allowed, providing relief to the applicants.
|
