2016 (11) TMI 866

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Singh, Advocate- for the respondent PER: ASHOK JINDAL The Revenue is in appeal and the respondent has also filed cross objection. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the manufacturer of excisable goods falling under chapter 29, 30 & 33 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and the show cause notice dated 07.05.2010 was issued for the period 01.01.2009 to 30.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the penalty on the respondent is imposable. As the explanation 2 to Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 dated 07.07.2009 is clarificatory in nature and retrospectively applicable. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent opposed the contention of the Ld. AR and submits that Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mundra Ports and Special Economic Zone ltd. vs. CCE 201....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the appeal is to be allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. In this case the cenvat credit was denied to the respondent relying on the decision of Vandana Global Ltd. (supra) holding that the explanation 2 to Rule 2(k) of the CCR, 2004 is clarificatory in nature and retrospectively applicable. The decision of the Lar....