2017 (6) TMI 153

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nbsp; Since the issue involved in all the three appeals is identical therefore all the three appeals are being disposed by the common order.  For the sake of convenience the facts of Appeal No. 23718/2014 are taken.  The appellants are engaged in manufacture of parts of electrical switches and fuses falling under CETSH  85681010 and parts used for fuses falling under CETSH 87089900 and are availing CENVAT credit as per Cenvat Credit Rules 2004.  The appellants procured copper from M/s Meta Copper and Alloy Pvt Ltd Goa (EOU)  and are availing CENVAT credit in accordance with the remark of Cenvat Credit available on excise  the invoices of M/s Meta Copper and Alloys Ltd.  As per the information of the depart....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ther the extended period of limitation can be invoked.  He further submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is no more resintegra and has been settled in favour of the appellant by the following decisions: 1) CCE Vs H.K. Moulders [2011(268)ELT 43(Guj)] 2) Sri Venkateshwara Precision Components Vs CCE Chennai [2010(258)ELT 553(Tri-Che] 3) Emcure Pharmaceuticals ltd Vs CCE Pune [2008(225)ELT 513(Tri-Mum)] 4) Zabatex Textiles India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST Vapi [206(336)ELT 75 (Tri-Ahmd)] 5) G.R. Polyfilms Pvt Ltd Vs CCE Kolkata [2014(302)ELT 259(Tri-Kol) 6) Metaclad Industries Vs CCE Mumbai [2013(289) ELT 381(Tri-Mum)] He further submitted that in the case of   HK  Moulders cited supra, the H....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se of Metaclad Industries  cited supra, the Tribunal in para 5.4 and 5.5 has clearly held that the amendment made in the said Rule in 2009 is only for the purpose of removal of doubt and not for any  other reason and the said clarification is applicable retrospectively.  Para 5.4 and 5.5 are reproduced herein. " 5.4    The clarification/amendment made in the said Rule in 2009 is only for the purpose of removal of doubts and not for any other reason. Therefore, the Revenue's contention for restricting the credit has no rationale at all and has to be rejected outright. 5.5       Further this Tribunal in a number of cases relied upon by the appellants, namely, Sri Venkateshwara ....