9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants. - 246 of 2009-SM - - - Dated:- 3-3-2011 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, JJ. Present for the Appellant: Shri K.K.Sharma, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri Anil Khanna, SDR PER: ASHOK JINDAL The appellants are in appeal against the denial of credit availed by them on the basis of endorsed by their head office to their factory. 2. The facts of the case are that it was alleged against the appellants they are engaged in the activities of providing the services of erection, commissioning and installation of air conditioning and related works to various customers, such as military, railways, and airports etc. were registered with the Central Excise department at Plot No.25, Sector 4, Faridabad. In February, 2006, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. vs. CCE, Lucknow-2007 (219) ELT 333 (Tri.-Del.) (2) Gharda Chemicals Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai 2004 (167) ELT 89 (Tri.-Mum) (3) CCE, Surat vs. Kalpana Industries 2004 (175) ELT 309 (Tri.-Mum) (4) Tooltronics vs.CCE, Mumbai-II -2006 (205) ELT 946 (Tri.-Mum) (5) Salora International Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut -2002 (147) ELT 740 (Tri.-Del.) (6) Electro Steel Castings Ltd. vs. CCE, Calcutta-III 2001 (136) ELT 929 (Tri.-Kolkata) (7) Chrome Chemical Industries vs. CCE, Calcutta-IV 2001 (135) ELT 405 (Tri.-Kolkata) (8) SWIL Ltd. vs.CCE, Calcutta-IV 2001 (138) ELT 216 (Tri.-Kolkata) (9) CCE, Trichy vs.Sree Uma Pasrameswari Mills Ltd. -2001 (136) ELT 910 (Tri.-Chennai) (10) CCE, Vapi vs. ITW India Ltd. -2010 (17) STR 587 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal products on which duty has been discharged. I do not agree with the contention of the learned DR and the case law relied upon by him in the case of Bengal Saws Steel Products Ltd. vs. CCE, Kolkata (supra), the period involved is prior to Cenvat Credit Rules, 2000. At that time, for transport of the goods form one unit to another unit, prior permission of Range Superintendent was required but after the year of 2000 it is not the situation. Hence, the case law is not relevant to the facts of the present case. The case of Vikas Testing Development Lab is also not relevant to the facts of the present case as in that case, the demands were raised against the refund made by the adjudicating authority which was availed by the party on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
