TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ES dt. 19.03.1996 was superseded by the N/N. 35/2008-CE (NT) dt. 24.09.2008 - In these appeals, the debonding took place in July, 2007 and credit was taken in November, 2007. Hence, they are eligible for the benefit of the circular. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/50415/2014 - A/61234/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 17-4-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Sh. R. Santhanam and Sh. Ajay Jain, Advocates, for the Appellant(s) Sh. Harvinder Singh, AR for the Respondent(s) ORDER Per: Devender Singh The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant M/s Aarti International Ltd., Unit-I Unit-II ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest and imposed equivalent penalties. 4. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that in the show cause notices dt. 08.12.2008, the allegation of de-bonding was not made and the same was made by way of corrigendum to show cause notice. The corrigendum dt. 16.03.2009 was issued after the appellants had already filed their replies to show cause notice on 19.02.2009. He argued that belated issuance of corrigendum after receipt of their reply was unsustainable under law as held by the Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Mahindra Mahindra Vs. CCE, Mumbai-V - 2006 (196) ELT 62 (Tri.-Mumbai). He contended that the charge of pre-mature bonding made in the corrigendum was therefore unsustainable. He further submitted that they had been allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not. 8. We find that two show cause notices were issued on 08.12.2008 and appellants had filed their replies in response to the show cause notices. Subsequent to the filing of the reply, corrigendum were issued in order to bring an amendment in the show cause notice to delete words premature and to include a paragraph, which led to substantial changes in the substance of the show cause notice. We note that the corrigendum was issued on 16.03.2009 after the replies to the show cause notices had already been filed by the appellant. In the case of Mahindra Mahindra , this Tribunal has held that Corrigendum/Addendum to show cause notice cannot be issued after receipt of reply to the original notice In view of the above judgment, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be denied to the appellants. 11. The Commissioner has also taken the view that the aforesaid Board Circular was superseded by the Notification No.35/2008-CE (NT) dt. 24.09.2008 and hence the benefit of Cenvat Credit on capital goods is not available to the appellants. If that view is accepted, it means that the circular was having validity before issue of the said notification. In these appeals, the debonding took place in July, 2007 and credit was taken in November, 2007. Hence, they are eligible for the benefit of the circular. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner and the same is set aside. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed. (Operative part pronounce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
