2017 (7) TMI 326

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ence of a specific provision, the claim of availment of CENVAT credit thereon and not used in manufacture should not result in denial of CENVAT credit availed. It is the position of law as has been held in the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Central Excise, Navi Mumbai v. Hindalco Industries Ltd - 2011 (272) ELT 161 (Bom.). Hon'ble High Court held that: 3. The Tribunal has dealt with both the aspects which form the subject matter of the notice to show cause. Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 provided that when inputs or capital goods on which Cenvat credit has been taken, are removed as such from the factory or premises of the manufacturer of the final products or provider of output service,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....had noted that the Tribunal in a long line of judgments had taken the view that where the goods have been shown as written off goods, the benefit is available. In the present case, as already noted earlier, the period to which the dispute relates is prior to the insertion of sub-rules (5B) and (5C) in Rule 3. The Tribunal held that the case of the assessee was covered by several of its judgments which have been adverted to in para 11 of the judgment. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has not submitted before the Court that any of those judgments have been overruled by any decision of this Court or of the Supreme Court. This case relates to a period prior to the amendment of Rule 3 by the insertion of sub-rules (5B) and (5C). In tha....