2007 (5) TMI 125

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Credit Rules, 2002 on the ground that appellants could not utilize the amount of Cenvat credit which was accumulated in their account. The said refund claim was rejected by the lower authority. 3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the issue is, now squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Navbharat Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I reported at 2006 (199) E.L.T. 148 (Tri.-Mumbai). It is his submission that there is no dispute as to eligibility of the Cenvat credit to the appellant, there is also no dispute as to the fact that appellant had exported the goods manufactured out of duty paid inputs, on which credit was availed. It is also his submission that the Tribu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ons or for export. In the appellants case there is no denial to the fact that the final products are not cleared for home consumption or that the goods cannot be cleared for export on payment of duty. The appellants have contended that the grey cotton fabrics received by them were liable to excise duty @ 10% whereas the processed goods were liable to duty @ 5%. I find that Notification No. 7/2003-C.E. was amended by Notification No. 38/2003 dated 30-4-2003 which prescribed an effective rate of 5% for cotton fabrics not containing any other textile material when subjected to certain processes. Further under Notification No. 28/04-C.E. dated 9-7-2004, the effective basis duty for cotton fabrics not containing any other textile material, has b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellant had availed transitional credit in terms of the provisions of Rule 9A of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Notification No. 35/2003-C.E. (N.T.), dated 10-4-2003 to the tune of Rs. 13,19,080/-. The said rule read with Notification in question entitled the assessee to avail the credit as specified therein in respect of inputs lying in stock or semi- processed or on inputs contained in the finished goods lying in stock. The authorities below have rejected the refund on the ground that refund cannot be granted in respect of the said credit in terms of Rule 5. However, we find that Rule (2) allow an assessee to take Cenvat credit of the duty paid on inputs lying in stock or in process or contained in the final product lying in stock on....