TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntitled to Cenvat credit - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/52315/2016 - Final Order No.57678/2017 - Dated:- 7-11-2017 - (Dr) Satish Chandra, President and Mr V.Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant : Ms Priyanka Goel, Advocate Present for the Respondent : Shri RK Mishra, DR ORDER Per V.Padmanabhan, The appeal is against Order-in-Original No.UDZ-EXCUS-000-COM-0024-15-16 dated 03.09.2015. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of polyester yarn falling under Chapter 55 of the first schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They availed Cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 50,00,611/- on capital goods. However, the department, after issue of SCN, passed the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sal of record, we find that the dispute pertains to whether the appellant is entitled to the Cenvat credit on capital goods. At the time of receipt of the capital goods in the factory of the appellant in June, 2011, the appellant was availing exemption under Notification No.30/2004 dated 09.07.2004. The procured capital goods were installed and utilized exclusively in the manufacture of exempted goods. However, the appellant subsequently filed a declaration dated 12.01.2012 to the effect that they proposed to utilize the machine also for manufacture of goods to be cleared on payment of duty. The adjudicating authority has also recorded that the appellant has used it for manufacture of one consignment which was cleared on payment of duty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LT 133 )Tri.-LB), in which it has been held that credit eligibility is to be determined with reference to the duty liability of the final product on the date of receipt of capital goods. When this decision of the Larger Bench is applied in the appellant s case we arrive at the inevitable conclusion that since on the date of receipt of capital goods, the final products were chargeable to nil rate of duty, the appellant becomes ineligible for availing the credit of duty paid on the capital goods. Hence, the impugned order is upheld. 6. In line with the above discussions, the appeal is dismissed. (Pronounced in the open Court on 09.08.2016) 7. By following the above order of the Tribunal, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
