9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the respondents were visited by the officers of the Commissionerate on 09/02/2006. He pointed out that the respondents had only two doubling machines. One rusted and non-working condition at the premises and were no machinery for weaving or processing or carrying out manufacturing activity on the yarns in the factory. He pointed out that the respondents were registered with Central Excise with effect from 30/01/2005 for manufacturing of man-made fabrics and cotton fabrics. They were availing Cenvat Credit on the inputs, namely, single/double yarn and grey fabrics. He pointed out that the investigations revealed that doubling machine was purchased in the month of December 2004. From the electricity consumption during January 2005 to Jul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re following the Notification No.214/86 for a manufacturer and Rule 4 (5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 4.1 Ld. AR argued that since no manufacturing activities was conducted by the respondents, they were not entitled to take any Cenvat Credit whatsoever and consequently Ld. AR argued that demand has been wrongly dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals). Ld. AR argued that after deletion of Rule 12B vide Notification No.11/2004-CE(NT) dated 09/07/2004, such facility to the manufacturer of textile articles was not permissible w.e.f 09/07/2004, if the manufacturing activity was not carried out at his registered premises. Ld. AR argued that the procedure under Notification No.214/86 and Rule 4 (5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are applicable only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the exported goods. Revenue has not challenged the payment of duty on the exported goods and also not challenged sanction of rebate claims sanctioned to the appellants. In these circumstances, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hino Motors Sales India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) becomes relevant. In the said case also Cenvat Credit was sought to be denied on activities not amounting to manufacture. In the said case after relying on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ajinkya Enterprises - 2013 (294) ELT 203 (Bom), the appeal was allowed. In para 13 of the said order, the following has been observed: "13. We now come to the next question viz. whether Cenvat credit can be demanded when they have utilized the same f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
