9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellant is located in the state of Himachal Pradesh and was availing exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003. On 27.11.2013, the said exemption was expired and during the financial year 2013-14. The appellant procured certain capital goods between 01.04.2013 to 27.11.2013 and after opting out from the exemption, the appellant avail 50% of the cenvat credit on the said capital goods in terms of Rule 4 (2) (a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue is of the view that as at the time of procuring the capital goods, the appellant was availing exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003, therefore, they are not entitled to avail cenvat credit on the said capital goods. In these set of fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the factory, [or in the premises of the job worker, in case capital goods are sent directly to the job worker on the direction of the manufacturer or the provider of output service, as the case may be]] at any point of time in a given financial year shall be taken only for an amount not exceeding fifty per cent of the duty paid on such capital goods in the same financial year." On going through the said provision, I find that if the capital goods have been procured by the assessee, he is entitled to take cenvat credit on the said capital goods to the tune of 50% of the credit in the financial year in which capital goods have been procured and remaining 50% in the next financial year. 7. Further, in terms of Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to interpret Rule 4(2)(a) in a manner that will benefit a person, who receives the capital goods on the date, on which, the goods to be manufactured were dutiable, despite the same goods becoming exempted goods on the next day, but to deprive the benefit to a person, who manufactures dutiable goods on the basis of the capital goods received in a particular financial year, would not be a proper interpretation to the Rules." 8. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the appellant is taken cenvat credit on the capital goods for the same financial year when they were manufacturing dutiable as well as exempted final product, therefore, I hold that the appellant are entitled to avail cenvat credit in terms of rule 4 (2) (a) of CCR, 2004. 9. In vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
