TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner (A) is correct but the fact as to whether the reversal of 8% amounted to full reversal of cenvat credit availed by the assessee or not is still required to be examined. It may happen that the reversal of 8% is less than full credit availed by the assessee or in a given case it can be more also. As such it is absolutely necessary for the assessee so as to earn the benefit of the exemption notification to establish that the entire credit availed by them in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods stands reversed by them. If there is shortfall in such reversal, the assessee is required to be given an opportunity to reverse the same. At this stage both the sides submits that it may not be possible for them to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacturer, availed the input credit in respect of various other inputs to be used by them and cleared their final product on payment of full rate of duty of 15% on the said vehicles. There is no dispute in respect of the said vehicle. 3. Apart from the above, chassis was also supplied to them by the persons other than chassis manufacturer. After doing the job of body building of the said chassis the same were being cleared by the appellant by availing exemption in terms of exemption notification 4/97 dated 01.03.1997 and subsequent notification no. 5/98 dated 02.06.1998. As per the condition attached to the said notification the exemption was available only if no credit of duty paid either on the chassis and the other inputs used ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in terms of the provisions of Rule 57CC the same would amount to reversal of credit, in which case exemption notification would be available to the assessee. Accordingly, he set aside the impugned order of the original Adjudicating Authority and allowed the assessees appeal. Hence the present appeal by the Revenue. 6. After carefully considering the submissions made by both the sides and after going through the impugned order we find that the provisions of Rule 57CC requiring the assessee to pay 8% of the value of their final exempted product are applicable when the final product is admittedly exempted and there is no dispute about the fact of exemption of the final product. However, in the present case the Revenue is denying the exem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itself in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE Nagpur 1996 (81) ELT 3 (SC). 8. Revenue s contention is that in terms of provisions of rule 57CC, the respondent should have paid 8% on the FULL value of the motor vehicles including the value of the chassis as already observed. The core issue here is not value of the motor vehicles while reversing the amount of 8% in terms of Rule 57CC. The core issue is as to whether the assessee was entitled to the exemption or not. As rightly observed by Commissioner (A) the assessee has reversed 8% of the value (whatever value it may be) that is whether inclusive of chassis or not, which would amount to reversal of cenvat credit availed by the assessee. However, we find that though the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
