9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R Per: V. Padmanabhan: The present appeals are filed by Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. 144-145(AG)CE/JDR/2018 dated 08.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise & Central Goods and Service Tax, Udaipur. 2. The respondent is engaged in the manufacture of cotton and polyester yarn and was availing the benefit of cenvat credit on inputs and input services which were used in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice, but the Commissioner (Appeals), vide the impugned order, set aside the demand. Aggrieved by the said decision, Revenue has filed the present appeals. 3. With the above background, we heard Shri P. Juneja, ld. AR for the Revenue who justified the impugned order passed by the original authority and submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) appeared to have erred in taking the view that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent has opted for availing the Notification No. 30/2004, which is aconditional notification and hence will fall within the provisions of Rule 11(3)(i). (iii) He relied on the following case laws in which, in identical circumstances, the Tribunal Benches have decided the issue in favour of the respondent. (i) Jansons Textile Processors vs. CCE, Salem-2018(7)TMI 850 (CESTAT Chennai) ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue has been considered in detail in the case laws relied by the respondent. In the case of Jansons Textile Processors (supra), the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal has taken the view that in case of conditional exemption such as exemption under Notification No. 30/2004, the assessee will be covered only by Rule 11(3)(i). This decision has been followed in the case of Wearit Global Ltd. (supra) where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
