9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the grounds of appeal. I agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). - No reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. : E/758/2010 - ORDER No. A/10316 / 2015 - Dated:- 10-4-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, J. For The Revenue : Shri G.P. Thomas, Authorised Representative For The Respondent : Shri Anand Nainawati, Advocate Per : Mr. P.K. Das; Revenue filed this appeal against order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the adjudication order was set-aside. 2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the Respondent was engaged in the manufacture of Soda Ash and Soda-bicarb classifiable under sub-heading No. 2836.10 and 2836.20 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th day of March, 1995. 5. I find that sub-rule 2 of Rule 57Q clearly provide that other than those capital goods in respect of which credit of duty allowable under earlier Rule or Notification prior to 16.03.1995, shall be allowed if such goods received in their factory even before 16.03.1995. In the present case, there is no dispute that the respondent received the capital goods prior to 16.3.1995, hence they are eligible to avail cenvat credit. 6. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly extended the benefit of limitation in respect of three invoices. For proper appreciation of the case, the relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced below:- 10.1 On scrutiny o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of acknowledging of these declarations that the said 55 items were covered under the scope of capital goods. This fact can also be very well correlated to those three items, which as per the findings of the lower authority does not fall under the purview of capital goods. The department, at the time of acknowledging declarations, filed by the appellant did not point out this fact to the notice of the appellant including these three items in question, hence, it is apparent that the respective authority accepted all 55 items as capital goods to be used by the appellant in view of the declarations. 7. I find that Commissioner (Appeals) has given a detailed finding in respect of limitation. Revenue has not seriously disputed this in the gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
