TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 613
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en or other household articles and parts thereof under Chapter Heading 7323.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2. The goods manufactured by the Appellant which were covered under Notification No. 10/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 chargeable to duty @ 4% ad valorem provided a condition that the CENVAT credit of duty paid on input had not been taken. In case, a manufacturer avails CENVAT credit, the goods were chargeable to duty @ Tariff rate 16%. A manufacturer was entitled to get benefit of SSI Exemption Notification No. 8/2001-CE dated 01.03.2001 or 8/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 even though a manufacturer availed benefit of exemption under Notification No. 10/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002. 3. In the present case, the Appellant did not avail CE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ural lapse like goods exported without bond or LUT or non-observation of specific procedure. It is held that benefit of export should be extended if it is undisputed fact that the goods have been exported. He placed reliance on the following Judgments : (a) Well Known Polysters Ltd Vs C.C.Ex - 2011 (267) ELT 221 (T); (b) Alpha Garments Vs C.C.Ex 1996 (86) ELT 600 (T); (c) Eve Fashions Vs C.Ex - 2006 (205) ELT 619 (T); 2.2. He further submits that the issue is covered by the Hon'ble Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/10810/2015 dated 17.06.2015 in the appellant's own case. He submitted that the value on which the duty was demanded is much below the threshold limit as prescribed in the SSI Exemption Notification No. 8/2002-CE dated 01....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erates the finding of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the record. We find that there is no dispute in the fact that the goods on which the excise duty was demanded have been admittedly exported, only on the premise that the goods were exported without cover of bond or letter of undertaking and ARE 1 as required under Notification No. 42/2001- CE (NT) dated 26.06.2001 issued under Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, it was held that goods manufactured by the appellant were not exempted as there was an effective rate of duty i.e. 4% without availing CENVAT Credit and 16% with CENVAT Credit in terms of Serial No. 28 and 34 of Notification No. 10/2002 dated 01.03.2002. 4.1. Le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dit on the ground that the inputs were used in the exempted final product. Further, the final product was cleared without furnishing bond. We find that the issue is no more res integra in view of the various decisions of Hon'ble High Court and Tribunal; as under:- 1) Repro India Ltd Vs Union of India 2009 (235) ELT 614 (Bom.) II) CCE Vs Drish Shoes Ltd 2010 (254) ELT 417 (H.P.) iii) Well Known Polyesters Ltd Vs CCE Vapi 2011 (267) ELT 221 (Tri-Ahmd) iv) Jyoti Capsules Vs CCE Kanpur 2009 (236), ELT 667 (Tri-Del) 3. In the case of Drish Shoes Ltd (supra), the question before the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court was whether an assessee exclusively manufacturing wholly exempted goods chargeable to Nif tariff rate of duty is....