TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (3) TMI 148
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the decision of Commissioner (Appeals) denying them Cenvat credit on knitted garments removed for export under bond. The knitted garments were cleared for export under bond and duty shown was nil being exempted under Notification No. 15/2002. Serial No. 14 and serial No. 15 of this Notification covers the knitted fabrics. Serial No. 14 gives full exemption whereas, serial No. 15 provides concessional rate of duty. 2. Heard both the sides. Shri V. Sridharan, Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellants submitted that:- (i) Once the appellants violated the condition of the Notification by taking the Cenvat credit on the goods which were exported, the consequence was to deny the exemption and demand duty. (ii) Appellants were entitled to follo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rther, the condition No. 4 attached to serial No. 14 of the Notification No. 15/2002, is reproduced below to make the matter clear:- "4. If made from knitted or crocheted textile fabrics, whether or not processed, on which the appropriate duty of excise leviable under the First Schedule to the said Central Excise Tariff Act and the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, read with any Notification for the time being in force or the additional duty of customs leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as the case may be, has been taken under Rule 3 of Rule 11 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002." 6. It is one of the submissions of the appellants that the department had made a mistake in denying Cenvat cre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en by the Tribunal in Steelco Gujarat Limited case [2000 (122) E.L.T. 381 (Tribunal)] also. On the other hand lower authorities relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in three cases and all the three cases have been cited by both the lower authorities. However, it is seen that none of the three judgments are directly relevant to the facts of the case. In Mihir Textile case [1997 (92) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] it was held that if notification prescribes conditions to grant exemption, those conditions have necessarily to be satisfied to become eligible. Similarly, in Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. [1997 (91) E.L.T. 538 (S.C.)] it was held that exemption Notification have to be given the meaning which they plainly lend themselves. In Citric ....