9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facture of finished goods. 2. Shri Dhaval Shah (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that first appellate authority has rejected their claim on the grounds that use of the pipes is not in the factory of manufacture as required under CENVAT Credit Rule 2004 (CCR). Learned Advocate relied upon the following case laws to argue that similar credit for pipes used in transporting water to the factory of a manufacturers has been held to be admissible:- (i) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad-III [2014-TIOL-2217-CESTAT-AHM] (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai vs Pepsico India Holdings Ltd. [2001 (130) E.L.T. 193 (Tri. Chennai) (iii) Vikram Cement vs Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or use in or relation to the manufacture of finished excisable goods as admissible. In Para 8 & 9 of this case law following observations were made by the bench, after relying upon the ratio laid down by Apex Court in the case of Birla Corporation Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise, [2005 (186) E.L.T. 266 (S.C.)]:- "8. As regards the Cenvat Credit of the central excise duty paid on pipes, I find that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Belgaum Vs. Bellary Steel and Alloys Ltd 2008 (226) ELT 280 (Tri. Bang.) = 2008-TIOL-662-CESTAT-BANG was relying on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner Vs. Pepsico India Holdings Ltd. (supra). The ratio which has been laid down by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letter C.No. IV/16/16/2003-CZO, dated 3-6-03." In these circumstances, this Court dismissed the appeal. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted before us that there are several decisions of the Tribunal which have followed the principles laid down in J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. and Pepsico India Holdings Ltd. (supra) and the law is now well settled. 5. In the instant case the same question arises for consideration and the facts are almost identical. We cannot permit the Revenue to take a different stand in this case. The earlier appeal involving identical issue was not pressed and was therefore, dismissed. The respondent having taken a conscious decision to accept the principles laid down in Pepsico India H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
