Case Law Details
Wearit Global Ltd. Vs C.C.E. (CESTAT Delhi)
In the present case the appellant has opted for exemption as per the Notification No. 30/2004-CE where the exemption is conditional. As per Rule 11 (3)(ii) CCR, Cenvat Credit balance will lapse only if the product is exempted absolutely under Section 5A of Central Excise Act. But since the Notification No.30/2004 dated 09.07.2004 is a conditional notification, hence only Rule 11 (3)(i) of CCR would apply which does not mandate any such lapsing.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
The present appeal is against the order No.UDZ-EXCUS-000-COM-0019-16-17 dated 24.08.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Udaipur. The appellant is engaged in manufacture of yarn falling under Chapter 35 of First Schedule of Central Excise Act, 1985. The appellant has also been availing Cenvat Credit on the inputs and have sought to avail the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No.30/2004 dated 09.07.2004 with respect to the unutilized balance of Cenvat Credit lying in the credit account as on 1st of April, 2014. The Department has asked for the same to be lapsed in view of contravention of Rule 11 (3) (i) & (ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) in as much as the appellant had not struck off balance of Cenvat Credit lying in the account at the time of opting for exemption from payment of whole of excise duty, under the said notification. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 5th September, 2015 was served upon the appellant and the lapse as above has been confirmed vide the impugned order. Hence the present appeal.
2. We have heard Mr. Manish Saharan, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Tamana, ld. DR for the Department.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
