2009 (3) TMI 302

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Customs challenging the order dated 19-6-2008 passed in Final Order Nos. 713-714/2008 by the CESTAT (Appellate Tribunal). 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the respondent is a 100% Export Oriented Unit ('EOU' for short) engaged in the manufacture of parts of agricultural and farm equipment which are chargeable to 'Nil' rate of duty by Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (Tariff Act). The re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....od October 2005 to March 2006; Rs. 4,52,883/- for the period April 2006 to June 2007; Rs. 5,23,185/- for the period July 2006 to September 2006, and Rs. 12,20,008/- for the period from October 2006 to November 2006, totalling to Rs. 31,39,039/-, were also rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs vide order dated 24-3-2007 for the aforesaid reason. It was, further, held that the benefit av....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder CSTA No. 11/2008 was preferred before this Court, which was also dismissed by order dated 28-6-2008 [2009 (233) E.L.T. 40 (Kar.)]. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. She has stated that in view of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, Cenvat credit is not available to the respondent, but, however, the Tribunal accepted the respondent's contention and granted refun....