2005 (3) TMI 663

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ]. This is a Revenue appeal against the OIA No. 273/2003-C.E., dated 22-8-2003. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the Registration Certificate has been issued to the same assessee carrying on manufacture in two different premises. Therefore, the capital goods installed in the main unit is required to be considered for grant of Modvat credit. He has rejected the Revenue s contention th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... epting the fact that the assessees have two units and capital goods were installed in one of the units. He further points out that the Mahazar was drawn in the year 1997 and the Show Cause Notice was issued in 1999 and hence, the demands are barred by time. He points out to the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of CCE, Chandigarh-II v. Bhalla Enterprises - 2004 (173) E.L.T. 225 (S.C.) where .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dvat credit on capital goods. The Registration Certificate clearly discloses that the assessee is manufacturing the final products and not merely carrying out any process of the inputs. Therefore, the judgment of Majestic Auto Ltd. is clearly distinguishable. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is rejected. Furthermore, the plea of time-bar raised by the Counsel is also justified in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X