TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n No.30/94. There are no hesitation in allowing the appeal filed by the appellant in this case also - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 1213 of 2012 - FINAL ORDER NO. A/85231/2022 - Dated:- 15-3-2022 - MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate, for the Appellant Ms. Anuradha Parab, Assistant Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. BC/400/M-III/2011-12 dated 30.03.2012 of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-III. The case was taken up by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter remanded by this Tribunal vide order No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filing their RT.12 returns periodically disclosing all the relevant facts to the department. The relevant invoices clearly declared that the assessee was claiming the benefit of Notification 30/04-CE. The relevant extracts from RG 23 A Part II accounts were also filed along with the returns. Thus, the question whether the appellant did or did not avail CENVAT credit on their inputs which were used in the manufacture of Terry Towels cleared without answerable payment of duty was clearly answerable from the records placed by them before the department from time to time. In other words, no material fact was suppressed before the department, let alone with intent to evade payment of duty. In this scenario, according to the ld. counsel, the exte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration of the matter. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the matter in remand proceedings. 2.3 The appellant started availing exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE from October 2004 onwards. The condition for availing full exemption was that the appellant should not have taken any cenvat/modvat credit on the inputs used. The appellant was maintaining separate input record for major input i.e. yarn used for manufacture of exempted and duty paid goods. The credit in respect of other inputs, viz. packaging materials and dyes and chemicals was reversed by them either on monthly basis or on consignment wise basis at the time of clearance of the exempted goods. Only the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... due subsequently. Hence it is not the case that they were not fulfilling the condition of the notification. As has been held in the above referred decisions, Courts/Tribunal has consistently allowed the benefit of such exemption notification even if the credit has been reversed subsequently. Accordingly the learned counsel urged that the appeal be allowed in his favour. 3.3 Learned Authorised Representative reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. 4.1 We have considered the impugned order and the submissions made in the appeal and during the course of argument. 4.2 We find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Mangal Textile Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o October 2004 and was delayed by more than 15 months. The Commissioner has also observed that there was a short reversal of Rs. 32,659/-. As such, he has held that the condition of notification cannot be said to have been satisfied. Accordingly, he has confirmed the demand of duty along with confirmation of interest and imposition of penalties. 4 . We find that in terms of Hon ble Supreme Court s judgment in the case of M/s. Chandrapur Magnet (Wires) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur, 1996 (81) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), reversal of credit of duty originally availed would amount to as if no credit was availed, thus satisfying the condition of Notification. However, Commissioner has observed that in the above judgment such reversal of credit was made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of M/s. Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. v. UOI as reported in 2004 (174) E.L.T. 422 (All.) has observed that the benefit of Notification granting exemption on the final product has to be extended even if the reversal of credit on the input was done at the Tribunal s stage. The Hon ble High Court further observed that reversal of credit for availing benefit of the notification is important and the time of such reversal was immaterial. As such, the Tribunal was not justified in taking a view that reversal of credit having been made by the petitioners after removal of final product will make him dis-entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 15/94-C.E. involved in that case. The appellant having r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
