2014 (3) TMI 790

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... were availing the benefit of Notification No. 29/2004-C.E. prescribing duty @ 4% for pure cotton goods and 8% for other goods and also Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. prescribing full exemption for such goods. It is accepted by Revenue that an assessee can avail both these exemptions simultaneously in respect of different goods as clarified in C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 795/28/2004-CX., dated 28-7-2004. However, if the manufacturer wants to take Cenvat credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of goods on which excise duty was being paid, they were required to maintain separate accounts in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable goods. It was noticed in November 2004 that they were not maintaining such separate reco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The submission of the Appellants is that they did not avail Cenvat credit during the month of March 2005 to December 2005 and this position is admitted in para-2 of the Show Cause Notice itself. They submit that the amount shown as opening balance in the ER-I returns for the month of December 2005 was actually duty and cess on input utilised in respect of goods exported during the period Jan. 2005 and Feb. 2005. They also took Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,00,229/- as BED and Rs. 2,006/- as Education Cess on input received by the Appellants during the month of December, 2005 and the department issued a Show Cause Notice dated 15-12-2006 after such credit was taken. 3. The main contention of the Appellants is that they have utilis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....judication order that the Appellants were exporting goods manufactured by them under Rule 18 & 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, it cannot be concluded that all the goods manufactured by them were exported because they have not been able to produce any proof regarding export of goods. The very fact that they were availing exemption under Notification No. 30/2004 providing full exemption from excise duty suggests that they were clearing some goods in the Domestic Tariff Area. Ld. A.R. also points out that there is nothing on record to show that Appellants have not claimed central excise portion of the drawback during the period. Once such drawback is claimed, Appellants could not have taken Cenvat credit. The fact that the Appellants have no....