TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account for input/input services used for manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods. As the Revenue itself was under confusion that the solar battery in question was exempted goods, so, it is held that the extended period of limitation is not invokable. Accordingly, the demand pertaining to extended period of limitation is set aside. It is noted that the appellant has already reversed the cenvat credit on input/input services used for manufacture of solar battery, therefore, the appellant is entitled to take the cenvat credit on input/input services used for manufacture of solar battery during the normal period of limitation and accordingly, the duty is payable by the appellant along with interest. In that circumstances, no pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se them as storage battery for the solar power generation purpose. However, the inputs and manufacturing process of both the categories of the baterries are identical. It was observed by the Audit Party that the said Company was claiming complete exemption on solar battery on the plea that they are entitled to such exemption on the strength of Sl.No.84 of the exemption Notification No.6/06 dated 01.03.2006. It was also observed that the solar battery is being classified under CTH 85414011 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, whereas the other category of batteries were classified under CTH 85078000 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2.2 Therefore, a visit was made on 20.04.2009 in the factory premises of the appellant. In connection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is not invokable. 6. On the other hand, the ld.A.R. for the Revenue supported the impugned order and submits that if the Audit could not have been conducted, the availment of benefit of Notification is not come to the knowledge of the Revenue. In that circumstances, the impugned order is to be upheld. 7. Heard the parties and considered the submissions made by both the sides. 8. We find that in this case, it is clear that the solar battery is cleared by availing benefit of exemption Notification No.6/06 dated 01.03.2006 and the same is declared in their periodical returns filed with the Department and there is no suppression on the part of the appellant. Moreover, in another proceedings against the appellant by the Revenue, ini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
