2005 (6) TMI 510

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld. Consultant for the appellants and Shri N.K. Mishra, Id. JDR for the respondents. 2. Shri Chattopadhyay submits that in view of the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. J K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. reported in 2004 (171) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.), they don t dispute the findings arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals). He only submits that the penalty im .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Tribunal s decision prior to this period is not applicable on the present facts of the case. He submits that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commr. of Central Excise, Jaipur v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. referred to above, has disallowed the CENVAT credit on the inputs used in the mines situated outside the factory premises. He, therefore, submits that the appeals may be dismissed. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cular is involved, the imposition of penalty is not desirable as held in the cases of M/s. Ambuja Cement Eastern Ltd. v Commr. of Central Excise, Raipur bearing Order No. A-921/Kol/2004 dated 23-12-2004 and Mangalam Cement Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur reported in 2004 (163) E.L.T. 177 (Tri.-Del.). The appellants case is squarely covered by the above two decisions. 5. In view o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X