TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 823
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leared the goods under exemption Notification 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004. At the same time they have claimed the Cenvat credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of such final products. The case of the department is that, since the appellant have claimed Cenvat credit, they have violated the condition of Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 which stipulates that "no credit of such excise duty or additional duty of customs on inputs has been taken by the manufacturer of such goods". Accordingly, the appellant are not entitled for exemption Notification No. 30/2004-CE. Demand of duty by denying the exemption was confirmed and penalty was imposed by the order-in-original. Therefore, the present appeal. 2. Shri Willingdon C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not have availed Cenvat credit and therefore, it is a clear violation of condition of the notification. He also submits that as per explanation of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, any rule or notification will prevail over the Cenvat Credit Rules. Therefore, even though there is provision in sub-Rule (3D) of Rule 6, the condition prescribed in notification will prevail over sub Rule (3D). He submits that the notification should be interpreted strictly. In the present case the notification is very clear and there is no scope of any interpretation. As per plain reading of the notification, the appellant was not supposed to avail Cenvat credit. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the following judgments:- (a) Eagle Flask Indus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Cenvat credit and when this be so, the condition of Notification No. 30/2004-CE stands complied. 6. The very same issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of Spentex Industries Limited (supra) wherein the following order was passed:- "5. The short point for decision is the eligibility of the appellant for exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. when they have reversed 6% of the value of exempted goods in terms of Rule 6(3)(i). We find the appellants claim on the applicability of sub-rule (3D) of Rule 6 is legally sustainable. The said sub-rule provides for a deeming provision to the effect that payment of amount under sub-rule (3) should be considered as credit not taken for the purpose of such exemption notificat....