2012 (8) TMI 756

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri T.M. Subramanian, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : N. Kumar, J.]. -  This appeal is by the revenue challenging the order passed by the Tribunal allowing the appeal and granting relief to the assessee in the light of Notification No. 43/2001 dated 26-6-2002 and 22/2003 dated 31-3-2003. 2. The assessee received the inputs on which credit was taken. However, d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....epartment. The user industry had also followed the procedure outlined under Notification 43/2001. 3. A careful reading of the Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules, reveals that any material may be removed without payment of duty from a factory of the producer or manufacturer or the warehouse or any other premises, for use in the manufacture of the goods which may be exported. Therefore it he....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng questions of law.  (a)     Whether the CESTAT is correct in holding that there is no necessity that the goods should be procured by the EOU/Exporter only from the manufacturer? (b)     Whether the CESTAT can ignore the legal provisions and allow the benefit of cenvat credit to the assessee which is in violation of Rule 3(5) of Central Excise Ru....