2018 (6) TMI 1408 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI – Reversal of CENVAT Credit – benefit of N/N. 82/84 is availed – denial of benefit on the ground that the benefit of N/N. 82/84 is availed and exemption granted, appellant having availed CENVAT credit on common input services is required to reverse an amount equivalent to 6% of the value of the goods – Held that:- Identical issue decided in appellant own case INOX AIR PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE & ST VISAKHAPATNAM [2017 (9) TMI 500 – CESTAT HYDERABAD], where reliance was placed in the case of DHARAMSI MORARJI CHEMICAL CO. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., RAIGAD [2010 (3) TMI 561 – CESTAT MUMBAI], where the very same rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules was invoked, where the Bench has held that the provis
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e is regarding reversal of amount equivalent to 6% of the value of the goods cleared under Notification No. 82/84 to M/s Hindustan Shipyard Limited claiming exemption on following the procedures required under Chapter X Procedure. Undisputedly, that the purchasers of the final products followed the procedure under Chapter X and CT-3 certificates produced. It is the case of the Revenue, since the benefit of Notification 82/84 is availed and exemption granted, appellant having availed CENVAT credit on common input services is required to reverse an amount equivalent to 6% of the value of the goods cleared to Hindustan Shipyard Limited. 4. Learned Counsel submits that identical issue of the very same appellant came up before this Bench and Fin
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e in hand the appellant is required to reverse the credit. The appellants were not cited before the Bench in the earlier proceedings. 6. I find that the Learned Counsel was correct in bringing to my notice that identical issue of the very same appellant has been decided by this Bench vide Final Order dated 17.08.2017. In the said order, the Bench while allowing appeal of the appellant, in Paragraph No. 5 extensively reproduced the ratio of the Tribunal in the case of Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Co. Ltd., [2010 (255) ELT 314] and also it is recorded that the same is upheld by the Hon ble High Court of Mumbai as reported at [2016 (338) ELT A38 (Bom.)]. In my view, the issue involved in this case being settled in the favour of the assessee by Ho
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =