AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 452
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., against the Order-in-Original No. AHM-CEX-003-COMMR-018-13 dated 21.03.2013 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aerated water, Fruit Juice, Fruit Pulp based drinks falling under chapter heading No. 22 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The finished goods manufactured by the Appellant were fully exempted prior to 01.03.2011, which thereafter became dutiable under Notification No. 02/2011-C.E. dated 01.03.2011. From 01.03.2011 onwards appellant have opted for paying duty. On scrutiny of ER-1 returns for the month of March 2011 and April 2011, it appears that appellant had taken Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 8,50,01,449/- paid on capital goods and also utilized the same tow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it in the month of March 2011 in terms of Rule 4(2)(b) read with Rule 2(a) and Rule 6(4) of the said Rules. Upon perusal of the provisions of CCR, 2004 it is clear that the main condition for eligibility of Cenvat Credit on Capital Goods are being used in manufacture of dutiable final products. 3.1. He submits that the decisions passed in case of CC Vs. Surya Roshni reported in 2003(155)ELT 481 relied upon by the respondent was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The said assessee subsequently filed Reference Application bearing No. MCC No. 2/2004 under Section 35(H) (1) of the Act before the Indore Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh whereby the Hon'bl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not exceeding 50% of duty paid on such capital goods in the same financial year. Rule 6(4) provides that Cenvat Credit on capital goods will not be allowed which are used exclusively in manufacture of exempted goods. In the present case appellant received the capital goods during the period between October 2010 and February 2011 and availed cenvat credit in March 2011 and April 2011. Since it is undisputed fact that the final products manufactured by the Appellant became dutiable with effect from 01.03.2011 and the said capital goods were used in manufacture of final products during the same financial year, conditions provided to avail Cenvat Credit has been complied with. He also submits that amendment introduced by way of substitution in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f a product which earlier was exempted but when the production started become dutiable, whether the appellant is entitled for Cenvat Credit in respect of such capital goods. As per the facts of the case the capital was received in the appellant's factory during the period 13.10.2010 to 28.02.2011. The said capital goods were subsequently used for manufacturing of "Maaza" which was exempted before 28.02.2011. However, the same became dutiable w.e.f 01.03.2011. The case of the department is that since the capital goods were received before 01.03.2011 and at that time the product "Maaza" was exempted, the appellant is not entitled for Cenvat Credit. The contention of the revenue is that for the purpose of taking credit on capital goods the dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant was engaged in the manufacture of exempted goods however it is not clear whether the said capital goods were used in the manufacture of exempted goods. 5.1 As per our view even if the goods per se were exempted during the receipt and installation of the capital goods but if the said capital goods were not put to use for manufacture of any exempted goods it cannot be said that the said capital goods were used exclusively for manufacture of exempted goods in terms of Rule 6(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The revenue has heavily relied upon the decision in the case of Surya Roshni Ltd - 2003(155) ELT 481(Tri-Del) on the ground that the same was upheld by the Supreme Court but the factual position as submitted by the Learned Senior Cou....