TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 906
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arfelt, SEJ Boards, and Asphaltic Roofing, falling under Chapters 27, 59, 44 and 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It appears that on verification of the records of the assessee, the revenue had noticed that they had availed exemption under Notification No. 30/2004 -CE dated 09.07.2004 as amended, in respect of Tarfelt manufactured and cleared during the period August 2010 to April 2011 and May 2011 to December 2011. Entertaining a doubt that in order to avail the above benefit of the aforesaid Notification, the manufacturer should not have availed CENVAT credit of the duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of such exempted goods, two show cause notices dated 5.9.2011 and 3.10.2011 were issued, proposing to deny the exemption ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s order that the present appeals have been filed before us by the appellant. 4. Heard Sri S. Murugappan Advocate for the appellant and Sri N. Satyanarayanan, Assistant Commissioner for the revenue. 5. Ld. Advocate would contend, at the outset that common issue is involved in both the appeals, that they were availing input credit on all the inputs under CCR and reversing 5% of the invoice value of the goods under Rule 6 (3) of CCR when the benefit of Notification supra was availed. In this regard, he would submit that the issue of denial of exemption is no more res integra in view of an order of the co-ordinate Mumbai Bench of the tribunal in Global Wool Alliance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2017 (358) ELT 1218] wherein, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ufacturers avail input tax credit, they would be ineligible for exemption under this notification. Reversal of credit at a later date would not make them eligible for this exemption. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Mumbai-I v. M/s. Bombay Dyeing Ltd. [2007 (215) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = 2007-TIOL-141-SC-CX] has discussed this issue. References have been received to re-examine the said circular in light of the decision the Supreme Court. 2. The matter has been examined. In para-8 of the above referred Supreme Court decision, it has been held that even when credit is taken, if the entry is reversed before utilization, it would amount to not taking credit. Accordingly, it has been ruled that in such cases, the benefit of the Notificat....