2015 (2) TMI 600

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... osed of by a common order. The Assessee in their composite mill manufactured cotton yarn from cotton and used the same within the factory for weaving of fabrics. In respect of captive clearances of cotton yarn, they were availing full duty exemption under Notification No. 30/04-CE dated 09/07/04 under which the goods covered by this notification are fully exempt from duty, if no Cenvat credit in respect of inputs have been taken. The period of dispute in this case is in respect of the November 2005, December 2005, and January to March 2006. During these periods, the Assessee took Cenvat credit in respect of the excise duty paid on packing material. The Cenvat credit in respect of packing material taken during January to March 2006 was Rs. 2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of duty demand, but did not accept the Revenues plea that cum duty benefit should not be allowed. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, set aside the penalty. Against these orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) while the Assessee have filed appeals against the portion of the order confirming duty demand, the Revenue is in appeal against the part of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)s setting aside the penalty and permitting the cum duty benefit. 2.  Heard both the sides. 3.  Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the core issue involved in these cases is as to whether the benefit of Notification No. 30/04-CE would be admissible to the Assessee during November and December 2005 a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... there is no merit in the Revenues appeal. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order confirming the duty demand based on denial of the Notification No. 30/04-CE is not sustainable. 4. Shri Pramod Kumar, learned Jt. CDR, defended the impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the duty demands based on the denial of exemption Notification No. 30/04-CE. He pleaded that once the Cenvat credit has been taken, the benefit of exemption Notification No. 30/04-CE would not be available as this exemption is subject to the condition that no input duty has been taken and in this regard subsequent reversal of the credit would not make any difference. He, therefore, pleaded that the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly upheld the conf .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X