TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 09/01/2006 allowed the benefit of similar items - Held that: - for the purpose of limitation, the appellant could have held a bonafide belief in view of the Tribunal’s order in their own case dated 09/01/2006. The said bonafide belief could not have continued after Rule 2 (k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was amended on 07/07/2009 when such goods were specifically excluded from the definition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elied on the decision of Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of N.R Agarwal Industries - 2014 (300) ELT 213 (Guj). 2.1 He further pointed out that no findings on limitation being given in the impugned order. 3. Ld. AR for the Revenue pointed out that explanation 2 was inserted in Rule 2 (k) of Cenvat Credit Rules on 07/07/2009. He pointed out that the explanation 2 before the amendment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He pointed out that the appellants genuine to take credit even after 07/07/2009. He pointed out that the appellants continues to take credit even after 07/07/2009 which indicate their intention to evade duty. 4. I have considered the decision cited by the appellant. I find that the impugned order relies on the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Saraswati Sugar Mills - 2011 (270) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the matter was clarified by insertion of explanation in Rule 2 (k) with effect from 07/07/2009 after that period, the appellant could not have held any bonafide belief as the Rule was very clear. However for the period prior to 07/07/2009 the appellant had a decision in their favour from Tribunal and their bonafide belief for the period upto 07/07/2009 cannot be denied. 6. In view of the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
