9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eligible to send the same - the stand taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) that extended period cannot be invoked does not need to be interfered with – Relying upon CCE, Pondicherry vs. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. [2004 (12) TMI 125 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] - duty paid by the job worker on repair charges is admissible as far as admissibility of credit on the repair charges is concerned - on merits as well as on limitation – Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/618/2007-SM - - - Dated:- 11-10-2013 - MR. H.K. THAKUR, J. For the Appellant : Sh. B.M. Patel ( Sr. Exe.) For the Respondent : Sh. K.J.Kinariwala (A.R.) JUDGEMENT Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur; This appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. 16/2007(AHD-II)CE/Raju/Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thdrawn. 3. Sh. K.J. Kinariwala (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue defended that stand taken by the first appellant authority in OIA No. 16/2007/Ahd-II CE/Raju/Commr(A) dt. 19/03/2007. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in this appeal is admissibility of cenvat credit under Rule 4(5)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2002. On merits under the impugned OIA dt. 19/03/2007 the issue was decided against the appellant against which this appeal has been filed by the appellant, on the issue of limitation Commissioner (Appeals) under OIA dt. 19/03/2007 remanded the case back to the adjudicating authority and kept all the issues open. Adjudicating Authority under OIO No. 03/AC/07-D dt. 27/04/2007 issued in pursua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments which the respondents have followed. The first option would not have created any problem since the credit taken would have been strictly as per procedure. I also find that none of the judgments cited by both the sides are comparable on facts and therefore, cannot be relied upon. The problem has arisen because respondents chose the second option described above and it is only a procedural irregularity. It is not disputed that capital goods are used by the job worker for the respondents and they are eligible to send the same. Therefore, it is felt that the stand taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) that extended period cannot be invoked does not need to be interfered with. Further, the judgment of the Tribunal in CCE, Pondicherry vs. Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
