TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 48
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case are that during the course of verification of records of the appellant, it was noticed that they have cleared 'fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks' on payment of effective rate of duty of 1% by availing exemption under Notification No. 1/2011-CE dated 1.3.2011 vide sl. No. 24. As per the said Notification, the effective rate of duty of 1% is applicable only when no CENVAT credit on inputs or input services are availed. Whereas the appellant has availed CENVAT credit on the inputs i.e. sugar and input services viz manpower supply agency services and other common services. Inasmuch as the appellant had availed credit on the inputs and input services, it appeared that the benefit of effective rate of duty of 1% was not available to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nditions on their own and were hence eligible for the concessional rate of duty of 1%. From April 2012 onwards they have stopped availing the concessional rate under Notification No. 1/2011-CE. He has referred to para 10.2 of the impugned order and stated that the learned Commissioner had noted that they had reversed the amount of Rs.42,00,866/-, however, he found that the said reversal does not make them eligible for availment of exemption since they have not reversed the credit in respect of few CENVAT credit inputs such as ''plastic crates' and 'Brite wash HD plus' and that the appellant further continued to avail credit on common inputs till March 2012. He stated that the 'verification report' of the Range Officer dated 15.4.2013 mentio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to the department and themselves have reversed the credit, no penalty could have been imposed. He referred to the following judgments:- (i) Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. - 2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC) (ii) CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Pepsi Foods Ltd. - 2010 (260) ELT 481 (SC) (iii) Continental Foundation Joint Venture Vs. CCE - 2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC) (iv) Amrit Foods Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2005 (190) ELT 433 (SC) 6. Shri M. Ambe, learned AR has reiterated the points in the impugned order. 7. We have gone through the facts of the case and we find that this is a case in which the appellant had opted for benefit of exemption under Notification No. 1/2011-CE dated 1.3.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s per Notification 1/2011-CE. Para 9 of the said judgment is extracted below. "9. In view of the aforesaid clarification by the Department, we see no reason why the assessee cannot make a debit entry in the credit account before removal of the exempted final product. If this debit entry is permissible to be made, credit entry for the duties paid on the inputs utilised in manufacture of the final exempted product will stand deleted in the accounts of the assessee. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the assessee has taken credit for the duty paid on the inputs utilised in the manufacture of the final exempted product under Rule 57A. In other words, the claim for exemption of duty on the disputed goods cannot be denied on the....