TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 685X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by any of the lower authorities, I still feel that also will be relevant. According to Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules, any materials can be cleared without payment of duty by a manufacturer for export. Provisions of Rule 19(2) which provide for clearance of goods without payment of duty irrespective of the fact that they were manufactured by the assessee or otherwise in my opinion would cover the issue in favour of the appellant. Further another point which was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that would be relevant is that after 2004, 100% EOU was eligible for the CENVAT credit. Therefore even if the assessee were to reverse the CENVAT credit the receiving unit would have taken the credit and if they could no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T 109 (Tri-Che)]. He has also relied upon the Board s instructions wherein it was clarified that inputs can be considered as excisable goods. He submits that this view is not correct in view of the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules according to which any removal of inputs as such can be done only after reversing the CENVAT credit taken on such inputs. He relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of M/s Lakshmi Automatic Loom Works Ltd. Vs CCE Trichy [2008 (232) ELT 428 (Tri.LB)] and submits that in view of the decision of the Larger Bench, the decisions relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order may be said to be no longer applicable to the facts of this case. 3. The learned advocate for the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is capital goods or inputs, the treatment as regards clearance of the same would be similar. Therefore, the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka upholding the decision of the Tribunal would be applicable to the facts of this case. The learned A.R. objected to this view on two grounds. The first ground was that the decision related to imported goods and not to the goods procured from domestic market. The ratio is in respect of goods procured from outside on which CENVAT credit has been taken. Therefore whether it is imported or obtained from domestic market, the treatment has to be same. Therefore, I do not find any validity in the objection. The second objection raised by the learned A.R. was that the decision in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent that would be relevant is that after 2004, 100% EOU was eligible for the CENVAT credit. Therefore even if the assessee were to reverse the CENVAT credit the receiving unit would have taken the credit and if they could not utilize the same for payment of duty they could have claimed refund. Therefore the situation was totally revenue neutral and assessee by resorting to the procedure of issue of CT-3 certificate and obtaining the inputs without paying duty did not get any undue benefit at the cost of the Revenue, When the situation is totally revenue neutral, and in the circumstances discussed above, extended period could not have been invoked at all. Therefore on the ground of limitation also, the appellant has a strong case and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
