9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 980X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adila Healthcare Ltd. [2009 (8) TMI 892 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] where it was held that no credit stand taken in respect of that part of dutiable furnace oil which has been used in the manufacture of exempted products. The demand at the rate of 10% of value of such exempted products is not called for - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/882/2008 - A/61681/2016-SM[BR] - Dated:- 18-11-2016 - Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Sh. Satya Pal, A.R. for the Appellant. Ms. Krati Somani, Advocate for the Respondent. Per : Devender Singh The revenue has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 24/CE/APPL/LDH/2008 dated 17.01.2008, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh. 2. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal with appeals filed against the O-I-O No. 44/LDH/07 dtd.15.10.2007. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that the appeals filed against OIA No. 44/LDH/07 dated 15.10.2007 have been set aside by this Tribunal by Final Order No. 61480/2016 dt. 26.09.2016 in appeal No. E/45/2005-Ex (DB). She also informs that the Division Bench of this Tribunal has held in favour of the respondents in a recent decision in the case of CCE, Ludhiana Vs. Ludhiana Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Appeal No. E/969/2009 (Final Order No. 61529/2016 dated 06.10.2016) in which the facts were identical. Relevant paras of the said order are explained below. 7. In this case, the contention of the respondent throughout the investigation is that they are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the Ld. Advocate that larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Nicholas Piramal (India) Ltd. reported in 2008 (232) ELT 37 (Tri. - LB) = 2008 - TIOL - 1877 CESTAT - Mumbai (L.B.) is to the effect that even the entire credit is taken, it is sufficient if at the time of removal of the exempted products, proportionate input credit is reversed. In any case, the credit availed is only to the extent for which they are eligible and as such there was not justification for invoking Rule 6(3)(b). 3. We agree with the above contention of the Ld. Advocate. In view of the clear findings of the original adjudicating authority in para 21 of the order, that no credit stand taken in respect of that part of dutiable furnace oil which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
