2025 (4) TMI 6

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has proposed the following substantial questions of law arising out of order dated 05.06.2024 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad (For short "the Tribunal") in Excise Appeal No.10073 of 2023 and Final Order No.FO/A/11362/2024-EX(DB) 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent manufactured only mango pulp based juice called Maza and Minute Maid Nimbu Fresh in glass bottles using the old bottle line and availed benefit of exemption of Notification NO.3/2006-CE dated 10.03.2006 under Entry No. 32. 4. The respondent assessee received capital goods in its factory during the period 13.10.2011 to 28.02.2011 and started installing gradually the capital goods which was used for man....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... goods were used exclusively for manufacture of exempted goods. 8. The respondent assessee in its reply submitted that Rule 6(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides that no cenvat credit shall be provided on capital goods which are used exclusively on the manufacture of exempted goods and the date of eligibility should be taken on the date of start of use of the capital goods and not on the date of receipt of capital goods in the factory. 9. Rejecting such contention, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand by order-in-original dated 21.03.2013. 10. Being aggrieved, the respondent assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 08.03.2022 remanded the matter back to the adjudicating autho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of exemption or dutiable of the said goods as on date of production. Therefore, the order of the Adjudicating Authority in the remand proceeding visiting to the legal issue is absolutely illegal and incorrect particularly for the reason that the revenue has not challenged the views taken by this Tribunal in. the order dated 08.03.2022. Having said so, now we examine the fact for which the matter was remanded. We find that the appellant in their daily production record first time shown production of Maaza pet 600 ML bottles on 29.03.2011 before that in the months of January and February, 2011, the production of Maaza RGB was shown as goods produced which are not manufactured on the capital goods in question as the capital goods in t....