TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 960X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the decision given by CESTAT, Mumbai, in the case of Garware Marine Industries Ltd. and Others v. CCE, Aurangabad [2007 (10) TMI 607 - CESTAT MUMBAI] - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/1901-1903/2009 & E/15/2010 - Final Order Nos. A/11875-11878/2014-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 18-9-2014 - Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) and H.K. Thakur, Member (T) Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri K. Shivkumar (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER These appeals have been filed by the appellants against different orders passed by Commissioner (A), Vapi. All the four appeals are pertaining to the same issue and are being taken up for disposal under this common order. 2. Brief facts are that appellant is a 100% EOU and is cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also relies upon the Larger Bench decision in the case of Kumar Arch Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur-II [2013-TIOL-614-CESTAT-DEL-LB = 2013 (290) E.L.T. 372 (Tri.-LB)] to drive home the point that third time cess is not payable. With respect to admissibility of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. Ld. Advocate relied upon Order-in-Appeal No. A/815 to 820/2007/C-1/EB, dated 15-10-2007 where the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. has been extended for DTA clearance. He also relied upon H.P. High Court Order in the case of Satya Metal v. UOI [2013 (290) E.L.T. 514 (H.P.)] to argue that only effective rate of Central Excise Duty will be applicable. 4. Shri K. Shivkumar (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that not taking of Cenvat cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appreciation the text of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 2-7-2004 is reproduced below : In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of the Section 5A of the Central Excise Act 1944 read with sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Additional duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957) and in suppression of the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No 7/2003-Central Excise dated the 1st March 2003, published in the Gazette of India vide number G.S.R. 137(E) dated 1st March, 2003, the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the excisable goods of the description specified in Column (3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee claiming these exemptions should not take any Cenvat credit. Also there is no such condition that unless the inputs are clearly recognisable as non-duty paid in these notifications. This interpretation also finds support from the decision given by CESTAT, Mumbai, in the case of Garware Marine Industries Ltd. and Others v. CCE, Aurangabad under order Nos. A/815 to 820/2007/C-I(EB), dated 15-10-2007. Para 4 of this order is relevant and is reproduced below : We find force in the submission of the appellants that the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 30/2004 with effect from 9-7-2004 cannot be denied to them for the reason that the product in question viz., Nylon twine has been manufactured by out of monofilament/m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
