2015 (10) TMI 2450

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) ORDER Assisting the appellant Shri M. Karthikeyan, learned counsel submits that the case of the appellant is that it is a manufacturer of PSC pipes and utilised the manufactured pipes for a water project of national importance. Appellant claimed exemption of duty on such pipes in terms of Notification No.6/2002, dated 01.03.2002 read with Notification No.47/2002-CE, dat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erly examined this issue in the light of the intention of the law relating to Cenvat credit since Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 is not at all applicable to the case of appellant following the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Tractor and Farm Equipment Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras in CMA 940/2007 disposed on 28.11.2014. He submits that Hon' .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a modality prescribed by law for utilisation. The modality prescribed by Rule 9 (2) only. Once Rule 9 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 is not applicable even Rule 9 (1) has no significance. 6. It may be stated that relevant notification cited above, enables the appellant to get exemption. That notification did not prescribe any value-based or quantity-based exemption. There is no case of Revenue .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X