TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 600X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of certain inputs. However, the Assessee s claim that this credit had not been utilised and had been reversed as soon as this irregularity was pointed out by the Department is not refuted by the Department. Since the credit taken was reversed without being utilised, in our view, the judgment of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India (2004 (7) TMI 98 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD) which is based on the Apex court s judgment in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. vs. CC, Nagpur (1995 (12) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) would be applicable to the facts of this case and the Assessee have to be treated as not having taken the Cenvat credit and would be eligible for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of packing material taken during January to March 2006 was ₹ 2,753/- and the same during November 2005 and December 2005 was ₹ 1,622/-. Subsequently on being pointed out by the Department, they reversed the credit and there is no dispute that this credit was not utilised by the assessee for payment of duty on any of their final product. The Department subsequently was of the view that since the Assessee had taken Cenvat credit in respect of inputs, they would not be eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 30/04-CE even if the credit was subsequently reversed. It is on this basis that the benefit of exemption Notification No. 30/04-CE was denied to the appellant and duty demands were confirmed by two separate orders-in-o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be admissible to the Assessee during November and December 2005 and January to March 2006, that the only ground for denial of the exemption benefit is that the assessee during these periods had taken Cenvat credit on packing material, that while the assessee during November and December 2005 period had taken the credit of ₹ 1,622/- and during January to March 2006 had taken the credit of ₹ 2,753/-, they had not utilised it and had reversed both the credits immediately on being pointed out by the Department, that in view of this, for the purpose of Notification No. 30/04-CE they should be treated as not having availed the Cenvat credit, that once the credit taken in respect of inputs has been reversed, the same has to be tre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, pleaded that the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly upheld the confirmation of duty demand. He, however, assailed the Commissioner (Appeals)s order regarding permitting cum duty benefit and setting aside the penalty by reiterating the grounds of appeal in the Revenues appeals. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. The core issue in these appeals is as to whether in the circumstances of the case, the assessee would be eligible for benefit of exemption Notification No. 30/04-CE. There is no dispute that the benefit of the exemption notification is subject to the condition that no duty credit that is taken but the assessee during November and December 2005 had taken Cenvat credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
