HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.)

(2.) SHRI B.L. Narsimhan, learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants states that the adjudicating Commissioner has restricted the utilisation of credit in respect of capital goods and in respect of specified services under Rule 6(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 applying the Sub -rule 6(3)(c) of the said Rules as the Appellants have been producing dutiable and exempted output services. The learned Counsel states that Sub -rule 6(3)(c) relates to only input duty credit and restriction placed therein is not applicable to the capital goods credit and credit in respect of specified services, which are covered under Sub -rule 6(4) and Rule 6(5) respectively. In support of his contention, he relies on the Ministry of Finance (Board's), Circular No. 137/203/07 -CX -4, dated 1 -10 -2007 and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Idea Cellular Ltd. v. CCE, Rohtak - Final Order No. 130 -131/09, dated 17 -2 -2009 ( : 2009 (16) S.T.R. 712 (Tri.)). He further states that the Board's Circular was taken note of by the adjudicating Commissioner but he has not dealt with same. In view of the Board's Circular and cited decision of the Tribunal, the learned Counsel prays for total waiver of the pre -deposit.

(3.) AFTER hearing both sides and taking note of the cited Circular of the Board and decision of the Tribunal, we are satisfied that the Appellants have prima facie case in their favour and hence, we waive the requirement of pre -deposit during the pendency of the appeal.