2017 (6) TMI 267

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....02. The appellant was also following the Central Excise procedures prescribed in the statute till 8.7.2004. In Budget 2004, Rule 12 B of Central Excise Rules, 2002, which prescribed special procedure for textile deemed manufacturers, was omitted vide Notification No.11/2004-CE (NT) dated 9.7.2004. However, even after 9.7.2004 the appellant acted as a deemed manufacturer and continued to avail the CENVAT Credit and discharged the excise duty on the clearance of processed goods. The Department has issued a show-cause notice proposing disallowance of the CENVAT Credit on the allegation that after 9.7.2004, the appellant does not remain as a manufacturer, therefore, the credit availed in the status of non-manufacturer is not admissible. The adj....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Supdt. (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that since the appellant does not remain as a manufacturer, CENVAT Credit after 9.7.2004 is not permissible as the CENVAT Credit is admissible only in case the assessee hold the status of manufacturer. He relied upon the following judgments:- (a) Bombay Burmah rading Corpn. Ltd. - 2008 (221) ELT 513 (Tri-Mum) (b) Markfed HDPE Sacks Plant - 2011 (271) ELT 396 (Tri-Del) (c) Tata Chemicals Ltd. - 2015 (320) ELT 45 (SC) (d) Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi Vs. Avis Electronics Pvt. Ltd. - 2000 (117) ELT 571 (Tri-LB) 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. I find that there is no dispute that the appellant was worki....