TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 760
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Brief facts are that appellants are manufacturers of cotton yarn (not containing any other textile materials) falling under Chapter 52 of First Schedule to CETA, 1985 and are also duly registered with the Central Excise Department. They were paying duty @ 4% on cotton yarn as per Notification No.29/2004 dated 9.7.2004. This was amended by Notification No. 5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellants proposing to recover the credit availed by them alleging that since cotton yarn attracted nil rate of duty, the appellants are not eligible to avail credit. After due process of law, the original authority disallowed the credit and confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalties. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence these appeals. 2. All the above....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cotton yarn attracted 4% of duty. Even as per the amendment, cotton yarn never remained an exempted product. The department has issued show cause notice and confirmed the demand on the erroneous assumption that cotton yarn was exempted from duty for the period between 7.12.2008 to 6.7.2009. For better appreciation, the ld. counsel has furnished a Table simplifying the position of duty on cotton ya....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the case of Arvind Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad - [2014] 47 taxmann.com 91. Further that even assuming that cotton yarn was wholly exempted product for the said period, since duty was paid by the appellant, the credit availed is eligible as decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Repro India Ltd. Vs. Union of India - [2008] 2008 taxmann.com 943 (Bombay).....