2017 (8) TMI 209

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... paid on inputs, capital goods and credit of Service Tax paid on the inputs services as well as on the output services. 3. Both the unit were granted approval under EOU scheme vide LOP's dt. 05.09.1994 and 02.06.2000 for setting up a 100% EOU for the manufacture and export of all types of yarn. In the month of July, 2007, both the unit applied for pre-mature debonding of 100% EOU for which they were finally allowed to exit out of EOU scheme and convert into EPCG scheme by the Assistant Development Commissioner vide two different debonding order both dt. 29.10.2007. The appellants deposited the duties leviable on imported/indigenous capital goods and inputs. The appellant started their unit as DTA unit w.e.f. 01.10.2007 and took Cenvat Cred....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Board Circular dt. 19.03.1996 and argued that the Circular allowed availment of Cenvat Credit in such a situation. He relied upon the following case laws where Cenvat Credit on capital goods at the time of debonding EOU had been allowed:- 1. TECUMSEH Products India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Hyderabad-IV - 2016 (336) ELT 685 (Tri. Bang.) 2. Krebs Biochemicals Ltd. Vs. CCE, Guntur - 2001 (138) ELT 353 (Tri. - Chennai) 3. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2016 (332) ELT 242 (Guj.) 4. Atul Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Cochin - 2009 (235) ELT 385 (S.C.). 5. CCE, Pune Vs. Rajdhani Fab. Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 (221) ELT 435 (Tri - Mum). 5. Ld. AR reiterated the findings in the order of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... contended by the Ld. Advocate, DGFT had given extensions in both cases, which are on record. The Commissioner has given the finding that it would have been a case of premature debonding had the debonding been done before the dates indicated in the LOP issued by the Development Commissioner. We find that this interpretation of Ld. Commissioner is erroneous because once DGFT had given extensions in both the cases, extended period for bonding was relevant for this purpose and the debonding has to be viewed in terms of the duly extended date by the competent authority. 10. Even if it is considered that the debonding was not premature, this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Pune Vs. Rajdhani Fab. Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which was affirmed by the Hon'ble....