TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... restriction is on inputs used in the manufacture of specified goods and no input service and capital goods is justified - the denial of the CENVAT Credit on inputs is justified. Penalty - Held that:- It is a case of interpretation of the Notification and therefore, imposition of penalty is not warranted. The demand of CENVAT Credit on input along with interest is upheld - demand of CENVAT Credit on Input Service and penalty are set aside - appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. E/530/2009 - FO/A/76402/2018 - Dated:- 3-7-2018 - SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Kartik Kurmi S. B. Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri S. Guha, A.C. (A.R.) for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P.K. Choudhary: Br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Case Laws. 3. The Learned A.R. reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He has drawn the attention of the Bench to the relevant provision of the Notification and Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as reproduced in the impugned Order. For the proper appreciation of the case, Paragraph 2(iii) of the Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 and Rule 11(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules are reproduced below : The exemption contained in this notification shall apply subject to the following conditions, namely:- . (ii) the manufacturer shall not avail the credit of duty on inputs under rule 3 or rule 11 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 (herein after referred to as the said rules), paid on inputs used in the manufacture of the sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecified goods and no input service and capital goods is justified. 5. The Learned Counsel further submitted that for non fulfilment of any of the conditions of exemption Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003, the benefit of exemption under the said Notification should be denied and not CENVAT Credit as held in the following cases. (i) Arvind Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2009 (240) E.L.T. 613 (Tri.-Ahmd.). (ii) Mardia Chemical Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2006 (199) E.L.T. 110 (tri.-Mumbai) (iii) UOI Vs. Ganesh metal Processors Industries 2003 (151) E.L.T. 21 (S.C.). I am unable to accept the accept the contention of the Learned Advocate. For the reasons that the Notification itself indicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
