9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s without payment of duty under CT-3 certificates only from the factory of manufacturer of the goods and such manufacturer should have followed procedures contained in Central Excise Rules 2002; that however it appeared that appellants had manufactured computer system alone in their unit and not the impugned monitors; hence appellants were not eligible to clear the said monitors under CT-3 certificates by availing exemption under Notification No.22/2003-CE dt. 31.03.2003; that instead, they were required under Rule 3 (5) of CCR to pay an amount equal to the credit taken on such monitors while clearing them to the 100% EOU / STP units. Proceedings initiated against the appellants culminated in order dt. 23.11.2007 which inter alia ordered re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision made by the Tribunal / High Court, proximate to the case on hand, or to keep the appeals pending, till the final outcome of the issues raised. Hence the matter has come up once again before this Bench. 3. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant, Ld. Advocate Shri D. Santhana Gopalan submitted that the very same issue that was the subject matter of Tribunal's Larger Bench in the case of Lakshmi Automatic Loom Works Ltd. (supra) has subsequently come up before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in CCE Bangalore Vs Solectron Centum Electronics Ltd. in C.E.A No.49 of 2009 decided on 11.06.2014 and reported in 2014 (309) ELT 479 (Kar.) and the High Court has inter alia, held that credit could not be denied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1998 when Rule 57F of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules,1944 was in force and the benefit of Notification No.1/95-CE dt. 4.1.1995 had been claimed by the appellants therein. However, the controversy in the present appeal relates to the period July 1996 to December 2006 when the concerned legal provision in force was Rule 3 (5) of Cenvat Credit Rules (CCR) 2004 and the notification that was sought to be availed was No.22/2003-CE dt. 31.03.2003. 6.3 Be that as it may be, we find that the matter in the Solectron Centum Electronics was referred to the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by the Hon. Apex Court to decide the case in the light of the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Lakshmi Automatic Loom Works Ltd. We find in paras 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at credit had been taken which have been removed as such by the DTA unit to an EOU or EHTP unit or STP unit etc. there will not arise any legal requirement to effect payment of duty equal to the cenvat credit availed. The relevant portion of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka judgement of Solectron Centum Electronics (supra) is reproduced as under : 15. In so far as the inputs are concerned, it is not in dispute that the assessee while purchasing the said goods for its DTA unit has paid duty. It is only when those inputs as such were removed to the EHTP unit, the Cenvat credit availed was reversed. It is because, if the assessee had purchased those inputs for its EHTP unit by virtue of aforesaid Notification, there was no duty payable, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
