2026 (3) TMI 1064

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lication filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal, against the order-in-Appeal dated 27.09.2007 has been allowed by setting aside the order-in-appeal and restoring the order-in-original. 2. The facts of the case, in short, are as under:- (a) The petitioner is a public limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, having its factory at village Simrai, Mandideep, engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn classifiable CETH 5206.00. The petitioner is a regular exporter of blended yarn. The petitioner was paying duty @ 4% adval under notification no.29/2024 while availing CENVAT Credit of the main raw material, i.e., Flox Fibre. For part of the clearances, the petitioner was availing the whole of the exemption....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t to Rs. 4.8. The petitioner submitted detailed reply dated 9th April, 2007 (Annexure P-6) along with a copy of shipping bill for export of goods under claim of drawback. (d) The Assistant Commissioner (Customs) passed an order-in-original No.01/DBK/07 (Annexure P-7) after recording findings that the goods were actually exported and the certificate issued by the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent reveals that no CENVAT Credit had been availed on input and input services in relation to the manufacture of goods covered under the ARE-1 dated 12.09.2006. Another certificate issued by the Jurisdictional Superintendent, dated 25.04.2007, reveals that the CENVAT credit was availed on the imported raw material. It is also held that the no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al Excise Bhopal, preferred revision before the Central Government (Annexure P-11). Vide order dated 06.05.2010 (Annexure P-1), the Joint Secretary, Government of India (Revisional Authority) set aside the order-in-appeal, and affirmed the order in original on the ground that the Board Circular dated 01.02.2007, which clarified that reversal of credit on a later date would not suffice to make them eligible for the exemption. Hence, this petition is before this Court. 3. We have heard Mr Khalid Noor Fakhruddin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Himanshu Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 4. The Revisional Authority has basically relied on the circular dated 01.02.2007 (Annexure P-18) by whi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....15). In para-2 of the said circular, it was clarified that non-availment of credit on inputs is a precondition for availing exemption under Notification No.30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004, and if manufacturers 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 Vs. 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 ....