TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 875
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Order-in-Original dated 23.10.2009 also adjudicates the Show Cause Notice dated 20.02.2008 confirming the demand of Rs. 98,00,432/- (Rs. Ninety Eight Lakhs Four Hundred Thirty Two only) against the appellant assessee under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11A of the of Central Excise Act, 1944 and further imposes equivalent penalty on the assessee appellant under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 1.4 The Revenue's appeal is on the issue that the assessee appellant is not entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 50/2003-CE (supra), saying that the impugned order has wrongly dropped the demand proceedings initiated by the Show Cause Notice dated 24.12.2008. 2. The appellant assessee namely, Century Pulp Papers Mill has been represented by the Ld, Advocate, Sh. V. Lakshmi Kumaran, and the Revenue has been represented by the Ld. AR, Sh. Yogesh Agarwal. 3. In respect of Show Cause Notice dated 24.12.2008, where the issue of eligibility to claim the benefit of the Notification No. 50/2003-CE (supra) is involved, the ld. Advocate for the appellant assessee based on the appeal memorandum and written submissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....capacity and it is not establishment of a new unit. Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax (1992) 196 ELT 188 (SC) has held that a provision with the notification of promoting economic growth has to be liberally interpreted and a restriction on it also has to be construed in order to advance the objective of such provision and not to frustrate the same. 5.1 There are two reports on record. One from the department of Paper Technology, IIT Rourkee and another by Central Pulp and Paper Research Institute, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh. Both these reports observe that increase in installed capacity of paper production in the appellant‟s assessee unit is by way of expansion of paper manufacturing capacity of the existing plant and it can not be considered a new industrial units or a green field project. 6. The appellant namely Century Pulp & Paper Ltd. is in appeal against the impugned order additionally submitting that therein another Show Cause Notice dated 20.02.2008 has been decided confirming the demand of Rs. 98,00,432/- (Rs. Ninety Eight Lakh Four Hundred Thirty Two Only) along with interest against them under Rule 14 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t-I v. Apco Pharma Ltd. 2015 (319) ELT 641 (UK) * Tractor and Farm Equipment Ltd. v. CCE Madhurai-II 2015 (320) ELT 357 * HMT v. CCE Panchkula 2008 (232) ELT 217 (Tri.-LB) * Shree Krishna Paper Mills & Industries Ltd. v. CCE Jaipur, Final Order No. A/53948/2016-EX [DB] dated 05.10.2016. 7. In this regard, the Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterates the findings given in the impugned order. 8. After careful consideration of the facts of the case, the submissions of both the sides and the case laws cited, it appears that the issue is covered by the Hon‟ble Uttrakhand High Court‟s decision in case of Apco Farm Ltd. 2015(319) ELT 64/(UK). The Hon‟ble Uttrakhand High Court in the said case observes as under: 13. In our view, Rule 6 is applicable at the stage when inputs are received in the factory of the manufacturer and if the inputs are received for the manufacturer of a product, on which excise duty is payable, then a valid Cenvat credit is available to a reversing a valid Cenvat credit where subsequently the inputs have been used for manufacture of the same product which has exempted from payment of excise duty by means of a subsequent notification. The reason i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levant time is not liable to be reversed in the circumstances prevalent in the present case. The CESTAT, Delhi in the case of Shri Krishna Paper Mills & Industries Ltd. (supra) also supports the stand of the appellant assessee. The CESTAT, Delhi in the said case observes as under: 16. Further, our attention has been invited to the decision rendered by the Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka in CEA No. 82 of 2007 [2001 (268) E.L.T. 46 (Kar.)], titled as Commission of Central Excise v. TAFE Limited (Tractor Division), wherein it has been held that once the input credit is legally taken and utilized on the dutiable final product, it need not be reversed on the final product being exempted subsequently. However, if products are purchased subsequent to the said exemption and if any tax is paid on such inputs, as the final product is exempted from payment of tax, the assessee would not be entitled to avail the Cenvat credit on such inputs. But the Cenvat credit availed on such inputs till the date of exemption, vest in the assessee and the assessee cannot be divested of that credit as the law does not provide for the same. The Court further held that Revenue cannot take advantage ....