9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n appeal against the impugned order dated 4.8.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh, wherein cenvat demand alongwith interest and equal amount of penalty confirmed in the Adjudication Order were set aside. The reason assigned in the impugned order for allowing the appeal in favour of the respondent are that even if the process undertaken for converting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be reversed. 3. The Ld. DR Sh. G R Singh appearing for the Revenue relies on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of PSL Ltd. vs Commissioner of C. Ex, Rajkot reported in 2008 (224) ELT-66 (Tri. Ahmd), B.R. Knit Fab vs Commissioner of C. Ex reported in 2007 (215) ELT 444 (Tri. Del), PV Sanghvi vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II reported in 2004 (171) ELT 24 (Tri. Mum) to justify ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Crompton Greaves Ltd. vs Commr. of C. Ex, Mum-II reported in 2008 (230) ELT 488 (Tri. - Mum) & Stump Scheule & Somappa Ltd. vs Commr. of C. Ex. Bangalore reported in 2005 (191) ELT 1085 (Tri. Bang.). 5. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records. 6. In the impugned order, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the benefit to the respondent on the ground that once ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en there was no scope for payment of any Central Excise Duty on removal of final product. However, since the final product has suffered duty, reversal of credit taken by the Respondent on the inputs will not result in any loss of Revenue to the Government exchequer. In this context, I find support from the decisions relied on by the Respondent. The issue decided in the said cases are that the cenv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
