TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 80
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e decided in these cases is whether the appellant is required to pay any duty liability for the period July 2004 to December 2005, on the ground that they had availed simultaneous benefit of Notification No.29/2004 and Notification No.30/2004, both dated 09.07.2004. It also transpires that the main appellant had taken benefit of Notification No.29/2004 on some of the items manufactured and cleared by them and paid concessional rate of duty. It also transpires that the appellant had availed benefit of full exemption of some of the items manufactured and cleared by him under Notification No.30/2004. It is undisputed that the appellant had availed CENVAT Credit of inputs which were utilized for manufacturing of final product. One of the condit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nterest. 6. On perusal of the records and considering the submissions made by both sides, we find that there is no dispute as to the fact that the appellant had availed benefit of Notification No.29/2004 and Notification No.30/2004 simultaneously and were not maintaining separate accounts. It is also undisputed that they were reversing the CENVAT Credit availed on the inputs received and consumed for manufacturing of final product cleared under Notification No.30/2004. The adjudicating authority has correctly narrowed down the dispute as to the fact whether subsequent reversal of proportionate CENVAT Credit at the end of the month in respect of the inputs used in manufacturing of final product cleared under Notification No.30/2004 would ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the authorities below. Though there is not much discussion in the order of the Tribunal, the learned Commissioner of Central Excise, has discussed the entire issue at great length. After discussing about the relevant provisions contained in the notifications, rules and submissions of the assessee's representative, the Commissioner of Central Excise has decided the matter against the asscssee only on the ground that manufacturer had not maintained separate books of accounts for the goods availing of the benefit of Notification No. 29 of 2004 and for the goods availing of the benefit of Notification No. 30 of 2004. He has further observed that the circular does not speak of final goods or inputs, but, it refers to the goods only and then, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not reasonably possible to segregate inputs utilised in manufacture of the dutiable final products from the final products which are exempt from duty. Based on this, the Court held that the manufacturer may take credit of duty paid on all the inputs used in the manufacture of final products on which duty will have to be paid and in view of this clarification by the Department, the Court saw no reason that why the assessee should not make a debit entry in the credit account before removal of the exempted final product and hence, it cannot be said that the assessee has taken credit for the duty paid on the inputs utilised in the manufacture of the final exempted product under Rule 57A. The Court, therefore, took the view that the claim for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Hence, the benefit has to be given of the notification granting exemption/rate of duty on the final products since the reversal of credit on the input was done at the Tribunal's stage. While arriving at this conclusion, the Allahabad High Court has referred to various judgments under which such reversal was made subsequently and still the benefit was given to the assessee. 7. Since the issue on merit is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, we do not find any merit in the arguments put forth by the Ld. Departmental Representative in defence of the impugned order. To that extent, we allow the appeals filed by the appellant, setting aside the impugned order. 8. At the same time, we also fin....