2011 (9) TMI 263

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ms. R. Jagdav, SDR for the Revenue Per D.N. PANDA: Both sides are not in dispute about arrival of machine in its factory. First machine was purchased by invoice dated 8.3.2008 and the second machine was purchased by invoice 6.5.2008. Since both the machines were found not usable, those were removed from the factory on 28.1.2009 and 19.8.2008 respectively.  2. The appellant operate....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d not avail such credit when proper legal position was ascertained. The appellant being operating in a duty exemption area under the aforesaid notification, it has reversed the credit recorded above and that was never utilized. Having its unit in a duty exemption area, it was not liable to any excise duty on machines received under aforesaid invoices. Even if the department treats the removal unde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....redit recorded in the accounts was utilized at any time before that was reversed by the appellant in its own accord there cannot be conclusion that disallowance of Cenvat credit is warranted. Disallowance is usually made if it was earlier allowed under law.  But that is not the present case. The appellant also not being a manufacturer of machine and the capital goods not having enjoyed Cenvat....