9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that, the appellant were engaged in the manufacture of P & P Medicaments classifiable under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. The appellant was clearing dutiable and exempted final products. The appellants availed CENVET credit on the exempted final product, which is contrary to the provisions of Rule 6(2) of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d final products, and therefore, the demand of the amount 8%/10% of value of exempted goods, as confirmed in the adjudication order, cannot be sustained. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Mercedes Benz India (P) Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I 2015-TIOL-1550-CESTAT-MUM, which is applicable even prior and after the amendment of Rule 6 Rules, 2004. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et-aside the impugned order. The matter is remanded the Adjudicating Authority to decide afresh in the light of the above observation and case laws cited both the sides. We make it clear that, all the issues in this matter would be kept open. Needless to say that, the Adjudicating Authority shall give proper opportunity of hearing before passing order. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
