TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacture of the exempted final product but subsequently they reversed the entire credit, even the one which was relatable to the inputs used in the manufacture of spare parts. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/892/2004-DB - Final Order No. 21694 / 2015 - Dated:- 27-7-2015 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member And Shri Ashok Kumar Arya, Technical Member For the Petitioner : Mr. K. S. Naveen Kumar, Advocate K.S. Ravi Shankar For the Respondent : Mr. N. Jagadish, Superintendent (AR) ORDER Per : ARCHANA WADHWA The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of PD pumps and its spare parts. Till September 2002, the appellant was working under SSI Notification. After crossing the exem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to as if no credit was taken by them, in which case the benefit of Notification No.10/2002-CE would be applicable. The said plea of the appellant was not accepted by the lower authorities, who confirmed the demand. On appeal, Commissioner (A) upheld the order of the original adjudicating authority but set aside the penalty imposed upon them. 3. The submission of the learned advocate is that during the relevant period they had taken the total CENVAT credit to the extent of ₹ 91,363/-, in respect of inputs which were used in the manufacture of PD pumps as also in the manufacture of spares parts. Subsequently, the entire credit stands reversed by them. By relying upon various decisions of the Hon ble Courts, he submits that the revers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h reversal of credit amounts to a situation as if no credit was availed. The said decision stand followed by various courts. One such reference can be made to Allahabad High Court s decision in the case of Hello Minerals Water P. Ltd. vs. UOI: 2004 (174) E.L.T. 422 (All.) as also to another decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE vs. Ashima Dyecot Ltd.: 2008 (232) E.L.T. 580 (Guj.), vide which the Tribunal s order was upheld and Revenues appeal was rejected. Further appeal of the Revenue before the Hon ble Supreme Court stands dismissed reported as 2009 (240) E.L.T. A41 (SC). Another reference can be made to Gujarat High Court s decision in the case of CCE vs. Maize Products: 2009 (234) E.L.T. 431 (Guj.). 5.1 Inasm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
