TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 941
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3.01 and 6/2002-CE dated 01.03.02 considering them as Anesthetics. Since the appellants were wrongly availing and utilizing the credit for manufacture of exempted goods show cause notices were issued to them for recovery of the amount equivalent to such credit for various periods as follows: Sr. No. SCN No. & Date Period Duty Education Cess 1. V/30-10/MP/2001/Demand dated 26.02.01 March-00 to Sept-00 8,20,629/- 2. V/30-10/MP/2001/Demand dated 07.08.01 Oct-00 to Mar-01 8,84,015/- 3. V/3-31/MP/2002/Demand dated 02.05.02 April-01 to March-02 12,12,563/- 4. V/30-37/MP/02/Demand dated 28.04.03 April-02 to Dec-02 9,84,792/- 5. V(Ch.30)3-2/Dem/2003....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....argued that the situation is revenue-neutral and the option to avail credit or not lies with the assessee and whether to avail the modvat credit and to avail the benefit of exemption notification to pay duty or not. He relied upon the following Case Laws and Board s Circulars. 1. Garg Industries Vs. CCE 1996 (86) ELT 495 (T) 2. Gothi Plastic Industries Vs. CCE 1996 (83) ELT 123 (T) 3. Everest Convertors Vs. CCE 1995 (80) ELT 91 (T) 4. CCE Vadodara Vs. Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2005 (179) ELT 276 (SC). 5. Shivali Udyog (I) Ltd. Vs. CCE 2006 (204) ELT 94 (T) 6. Circular No.323/39/97 dated 14.07.1997 7. Circular No.361/77/97-CX dated 03.12.1997 It was also contested by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ally anesthesia or not. 6. The appellants have raised a major question regarding the appellant s right to opt for availing the exemption or paying the excise duty. It is a fact that the appellants were paying the required central excise duty by opting to forego the benefit of exemption. The Revenue has not disputed that the correct excise duty was not paid. The issue is limited only to the availability of the option to pay the duty or to avail the exemption. The appellant submitted that Circular No.361/77/97-CX dated 03.12.07 wherein the clarification was issued by the Board in a similar situation. However, this being a major issue has engaged the attention of the ministry and various judicial fora. We have considered in detail the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tthat consequently, an assessee cannot be denied the benefit of modvat credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of final product on which duty is paid, even though the final product is exempt from duty; that this position reverts to the circular of 1988 relied upon by the Appellants herein, which, in our view, correctly reflects the legal position. This interpretation seems to be more relevant and rational 9. In this context we also cite this Bench decision in the case of Ashima Dyecot Ltd. Vs. CCE Ahmedabad reported in 2008 (232) ELT 508 (Tri. Ahmd.) and the relevant portion of the order is as follows: We find that the issue is no more res integra and stand decided by the Hon ble Mumbai High Court in case of Bombay Dye....