9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n stock. The respondents availed the deemed credit in respect of grey fabric lying in stock as per the notification. Show cause notice was issued on the ground that the appellants availed excess credit as respondents were earlier working under Notification No. 6/2002. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings. 2. The revenue filed the appeal on the following grounds :- The assessee has taken cenvat credit on the stock of MM fabric and cotton fabric lying in stock as on 1-4-2003. Rule 9A of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 governs the provisions regarding credit to be availed. Rule 9A(1) allows credit on the basis of duty paying documents. If such documents are not available (Rule 9A(2) than assessee may avail credit as per provisions un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re covered under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2002. I also observe that Rule 9A(3)(b)(ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 inter alia reads as follows, "the credit of duty on inputs contained in fabrics or garments lying in stock as on 31-3-2003 shall be calculated in the following manner, namely :- "Where the inputs and the finished products are covered under Notification No. 6/2002, subject to such conditions as prescribed under the said Notification, the credit shall be equal to the product of, (a) the applicable percentage credit in terms of said notification; (b) the value of such finished products declared by the assessee and (c) the duty rate applicable to such final products in terms of the Notification No. 7/2003 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty on inputs and inputs contained in finished goods was allowed, and it was not allowed separately in Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2002. In view of the above facts, I find that the adjudicating authority has rightly held that the Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2002 cannot be applied to the instant case. In view of the above facts, I also hold that the adjudicating authority has correctly held that the respondent had correctly availed the benefit of Notification No.35/2003-C.E. (N.T.), dated 10-4-2003. In view of this, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, as the impugned order is legal, just and maintainable in law, therefore, I do not interfere in the impugned order and uphold the same. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
