RAMCO INTERNATIONAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the three appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which, he has upheld the confirmation of demands by holding that the appellants are liable to reverse the earned CENVAT credit when their final product became exempted. It is seen that all the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of garden tools falling under Chapter 82 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing CENVAT credit of duty paid on various inputs, which was being used by them on payment of duty on their final product. They were also exporting the goods under rebate claim and as such there was accumulation of CENVAT credit.

(2.) I find that the issue is no more res Integra and stands settled by various decisions of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. One such reference can be made to the Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE v. Ashok Iron and Steel Fabricators [ : 2002 (140) E.L.T. 277 (Tribunal -LB)], upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in, 2003 (156) E.L.T. A212 (S.C.). It stands held that when the final product becoming exempted there is no legal requirement of reversing the credit.