2015 (10) TMI 2450

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Adv. For the Respondent : Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) ORDER Assisting the appellant Shri M. Karthikeyan, learned counsel submits that the case of the appellant is that it is a manufacturer of PSC pipes and utilised the manufactured pipes for a water project of national importance. Appellant claimed exemption of duty on such pipes in terms of Notification No.6/2002, dated 01.03.2002 r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Collector, the authority should have properly examined this issue in the light of the intention of the law relating to Cenvat credit since Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 is not at all applicable to the case of appellant following the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Tractor and Farm Equipment Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras in CMA 940/2007 dispos....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o 04.04.2002 and remaining unutilised, there is a modality prescribed by law for utilisation. The modality prescribed by Rule 9 (2) only. Once Rule 9 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 is not applicable even Rule 9 (1) has no significance. 6. It may be stated that relevant notification cited above, enables the appellant to get exemption. That notification did not prescribe any value-based or quan....