2017 (2) TMI 1140

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... indal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund claim was rejected by the both authorities below. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was manufacturing of Pet Jars/Bottles/Cans which were captively used for manufacture of final products i.e. Mustard Oil. The appellant also availing Cenvat Credit on the inputs used in the manufacturing of final goods. On .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellant is in appeal. 3. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that at the time of availing Cenvat Credit on inputs the goods manufactured by them were dutiable. Thereafter, if the final product became exempt on later date, the appellant is not required to reverse the Cenvat Credit as held by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Panchkula Vs. HMT .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndicated manufacturing of final goods, the assessee has maintained separate accounts/record, duly entered credit of duty-paid on the inputs in manufacture of final goods and validly availed the Cenvat Credit. Therefore, the same cannot be reversed on the ground that the final product (i.e. agricultural Tractors) were subsequently exempted from tax. Thus, the contrary arguments of the learned couns .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X