9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singh, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri Sparsh Bhrgav, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri B.B. Sharma, DR JUDGEMENT Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa(for the Bench): After hearing both sides, we find that dispute in the present appeal relates to availability of Cenvat credit of duty paid on various items which the appellant claimed as capital goods. 2. In respect of first four items, it is better to reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) Aquat and Boiler Sl.No. 26 of SCN dated 04.11.94), Unipro 38 and Emklo 220 (Sl. No. 24 25 of SCN dated 25.11.94) and Component Glue (Sl. No. 52 of SCN dated 13.3.95). All these items are in the nature of inputs. The appellants themselves have admitted in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) and allow the Cenvat credit. 4. As regards the denial of credit on Hydraulic Power Hack Saw, we reproduce relevant observations of the Commissioner (Appeals) as under:- Modvat credit has also been denied on the Hydraulic Power Hack Saw (Sl.No. 51 of the SCN dated 13.3.95 on the ground that the same is being used for repairs in the workshop and not for manufacture of goods. The appellants have not contended on this issue except to state that denial of Modvat credit vide the impugned order dated 1.4.03 is against the settled position of law and hence not maintainable. In this matter, I find that the Hon ble Tribunal in the case of National Steel Industries Ltd. vs. CCE reported in [2002 (149) ELT 735 (Tri-Del)] has held that credit is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld to be an activity related to the manufacturing activity. Thus, entitling the assessee to avail the Cenvat credit. Reference can be made to following decisions: 1. Ambuja Cements Eastern Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur 2010 (256) ELT 690 (Chhattisgarh) 2. Hindustan Zinc vs. Union of India 2008 (228) ELT 517 (Raj.) 3. CCE, Bangalore-I vs. Alfred Herbert (India) Ltd. 2010 (257) ELT 29 (Kar.) 6. Reference is made to the latest decision in the case of Nangganj Sihori Sugar Co.Ltd. vs. CCE, Lucknow vide order dated 435/2011-SM dt.14.7.11 wherein identical submissions made by both sides and the Tribunal observed as under:- Learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the judgement of Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vikram Cement vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
