9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y should have themselves verified the declaration by making a visit to the factory. Since no such effort has been made, I am inclined to go by the declaration given by the appellant and prima facie it would appear that these items were parts and accessories of capital goods or used as inputs for fabricating capital goods in the factory and there is no reason to deny CENVAT credit on these items. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itions were heard together. 3. The issue involved in these appeals is CENVAT Credit taken on parts and accessories of capital goods during the period from March 2010 to June 2010 for an amount of Rs.8,37,503/- in Appeal Nos.E/505 506/2012 and for the period from July 2010 to December 2010 for an amount of Rs.5,22,054/- in Appeal No.E/526/2012. 4. The counsel for the appellant submits that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter, there are decisions on either side by different High Courts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also has referred the matter to a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut - 2010 (260) ELT 321 (SC). 7. In other matters, I find that the appellants had given exact place of use of the impugned items. If the adjudicating authority or the appellate authority w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
