TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 902X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uts - Held that: - I find that the issue is no more res integra in view of the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Hyderabad-I vs Matrix Laboratories Ltd., [2014 (6) TMI 685 - CESTAT BANGALORE], where it was held that Notification No. 22/2003-C.E. provides for clearance of the goods without payment of duty to 100% EOUs based on CT-1 certi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During investigation, the DGCEI Officers noticed that the appellant cleared the input as such to a 100% EOU M/s Tarus India Ltd. of Bhiwadi on the basis of CT-3 certificate issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Bhiwadi. But the appellant did not reverse/debit the cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 4,61,809/- availed on such inputs. The adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d below: 4. I have considered the submissions. I find that as submitted by the learned counsel, in the case of Solectron Centum Electronics Ltd ., the issue before the Tribunal was whether the capital goods can be removed without reversing the Cenvat credit to an EOU unit availing the benefit of Notification No. 22/2003-C.E. Notification provides for clearance of the goods without payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ratio is in respect of goods procured from outside on which Cenvat credit has been taken. Therefore whether it is imported or obtained from domestic market, the treatment has to be same. Therefore, I do not find any validity in the objection. The second objection raised by the learned AR was that the decision in the case of Solectron Centum Electronics Ltd. relates to refund claim. In the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
