9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 841X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/2068, 2067/2012-EX(DB) - A/52132-52133/2017-EX(DB) - Dated:- 2-3-2017 - Shri. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri B.L. Narsimhan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Yogesh Agarwal, DR for the Respondent Per M. V. Ravindran: These two appeals are directed against the Order-in-Original No. 14/2012/C.EX/JPR-II/Comm dated 25.04.2012. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant herein is manufacturing lead, zinc, ores etc. and availing Cenvat Credit on inputs, capital goods and input services. During the period February 2008 to December 2010 the appellant availed Cenvat Credit on the common inputs and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in their own case vide final order no. A/51895-51899/2016 dated 27.05.2016 as also vide final order no. A/939/2012 dated 10.07.2012. 4. Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 5. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and perusal of records we find that the issue is regarding reversal of Cenvat Credit attributable to the power generated and transferred to their sister concern. It is the case of the Revenue that the input services are not used in respect of the power which is generated and captively consumed. We find no merits in the arguments put forth by the adjudicating authority in denying the cenvat credit to appellant as in an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not sustainable. Further, the reliance placed in the impugned order on the ratio of Hon ble Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi III (supra) is not appropriate. In fact the appellate Authority records that the facts are different in both the cases but still goes ahead and applies the ratio. As mentioned earlier in this order, the Hon ble Supreme Court was dealing the sale of electricity to outside parties and not to clearance of electricity to another manufacturing unit of the appellant. The input service credits attributable to the electricity sold to utility companies are not available to the appellants as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court. This, the appellants are not contesting and have already reversed the amount to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
