TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 991X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no one to one co-relation required between the input and output, explanation to sub-rule (7) makes it abundantly clear that if there is a conflict between the provisions of this rule and provisions of notification, the provisions of notification shall prevail - Simultaneous availment of duty exemption and benefit of cenvat credit militates against the very object of NCCD levy and would lead to huge leakages in revenue. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Accordingly we set aside the same and hold that the appellant is liable to reverse the credit taken along with interest thereon as correctly held in the adjudicating authority's order. However, since the issue relates to interpretation of law, imposition of pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order-in-original and allowed the appeal of the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 2. The learned AR place the decision of the Tribunal in the respondent s own case. The Tribunal in the said case cited as 2014 (307) ELT 805 has observed as follows: 6.2 Notification No. 45/2003-C.E., dated 17-5-2003 grants exemption from National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) on goods falling under 54.02, if they are manufactured from goods falling under same heading 54.02. The purpose of exemption is that there is no double levy of duty (NCCD) on goods falling under 54.02 both at the stage of POY as well as at the stage of texturised yarn and the duty liability has to be discharged only once, e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal products, whether or not any such input is actually utilised in the manufacture of such other final products, if the said inputs have been received in the factory of manufacture on or after 1st day of March, 1997. However, in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 2004, which are applicable to the present case, similar provisions do not exist and therefore, the ratio of the said decision cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. As regards the Modern Petrofils case relied upon by the respondent the facts were that the appellant therein availed exemption in respect of NCCD on yarn manufactured and captively consumed under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. and also availed exemption in respect of NCCD on yarn cleared to 100% EOU under Notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by way of utilization of credit on POY cleared as such. Such grant of double benefit negates the very purpose of levy of NCCD as the credit taken can be recycled any number of times. For example, let us assume that in a given case two units of POY are produced and one unit is captively consumed and the other cleared as such. The law relating to levy of NCCD mandates that the said duty should be levied on both the units of POY produced, either at the POY stage or at the texturised yarn stage. If the assessee pays duty only on one unit of the POY captively consumed and also avails the credit thereon and utilizes the same on the second unit cleared as such, duty is paid only on one unit and the second unit escapes the levy. This can be repeat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
