Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2018 (5) TMI 812

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Cotton Denim Fabrics and Cotton Yarn falling under Chapter 52 of CETA, 1985. The appellants had opted to avail exemption from payment of duty of the manufactured products under Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004. At the time of switching over to the said exemption, there was Cenvat credit of AED (T&TA) amounting to Rs. 15,81,781/- lying in balance (Appeal No. E/608/2009), similarly, credit of Rs. 24,42,530/- also lying in balance (Appeal No. E/609/2009). Out of the said credit balance, they had utilized an amount of Rs. 19,180/- and 9,939/-, subsequently, in discharging some past liabilities. Also, the appellants have failed to pay Cotton Produce Cess of Rs. 83,665/- (Appeal No. E/608/2009) and Rs. 35,340/- (Appeal No. E/609/20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....SI exemption. In the present case, the exemption was not a value based exemption, hence, the said provision is not applicable. Further, he has submitted that Rule 11 (3) of CCR, 2004 also cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the said Rule has been inserted into the Cenvat Credit Rules w.e.f. 01.03.2007, therefore, it has no retrospective application. In support, he has referred to the judgement of this Tribunal in the case of OCM India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I 2016 (9) TMI 626 CESTAT Chandigarh and CCE, Chandigarh vs. M/s Niranjan Decoflocks Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (9) TMI 129 CESTAT Chandigarh. 4. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Heard both sides and perused....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of the said final product and is lying in stock or in process or is contained in the final product lying in stock, if,- (i) he opts for exemption from whole of the duty of excise leviable on the said final product manufactured or produced by him under a notification issued under section 5A of the Act; or (ii) the said final product has been exempted absolutely under section 5A of the Act, and after deducting the said amount from the balance of CENVAT credit, if any, lying in his credit, the balance, if any, still remaining shall lapse and shall not be allowed to be utilized for payment of duty on any other final product whether cleared for home consumption or for export, or for payment of service tax on any output service, whether pro....