TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CESTAT NEW DELHI] and the High Court [2011 (2) TMI 575 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - minor discrepancies on the reversal of the credit with the statement submitted by the appellant. In our considered view, the Adjudicating Authority should examine the reversal of credit - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/257/2008 - Order No. A/11334/2015 - Dated:- 22-9-2015 - P. K. Das, Member (J) And P. M. Saleem, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri Dhaval Shah, Adv For the Respondent : Shri J Nair, AR ORDER Per P K Das The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Pipe Fittings classifiable under Chapter 7307.2300 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants were manufacturing dutiable and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed Representative for the Revenue is that there is no finding of the lower authorities that they have reversed the credit used on the exempted finished goods as contended by the appellants. We find that, in view of the retrospective amendment of Rule 6 (3) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules by Finance Act, 2010, the appellants were entitled to reverse the proportionate Cenvat credit attributable to the quantum of input used in or in relation to manufacture of exempted final product. This issue is settled by the decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court. In the case of M/s IPCA Laboratories Ltd. (supra) the Tribunal held as under:- 6.1. In our view w.e.f. 01.03.2008 Rule 6(3) had been amended to give an additional option to a manufacturer m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nover of exempted final product and this fact is not disputed. The Commissioner does not even dispute the quantum of the credit foregone. Once, the appellant have foregone the proportionate cenvat credit in respect of input services used in or in relation of the manufacture of exempted final product, they have to be treated as complied with the provisions of sub Rule (3) of Rule 6 and hence, there cannot be any demand of amount under Rule 6(3) (b). The judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CCE Thane-I vs. Nicholas Piramal (India) Ltd. (Supra) is of the period when the retrospective amendment to Rule 6(3) by Finance Act, 2010, had not been made and hence, this judgment of Hon'ble High Court is not applicable to the facts o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
