9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder-in-Original dated 26.03.2012 the amount of Rs. 1,38,019/- was disallowed, interest was demanded and penalty of Rs. 1,38,019/- was imposed under Section 78. On appeal, the First Appellate Authority rejected the appeal. Hence the present appeal. 2. Ld.Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that they have rightly claimed the credit and in support of his submissions he relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CCE, Visakhapatnam-II v. Sai Sahmita Storages (P) Ltd.[2011 (23) STR 341 (A.P.). 3. Ld.AR appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the order of the lower authority and submits that the larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tower Vision India Pvt.Ltd. v. CCE(ADJ.), Delh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that in Appeal No.ST/777/2009, the appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit to the tune of Rs. 2,59,95,327/- on shelters/parts as capital goods wherein the supplier has paid Excise duty on these items by classifying under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, or; Member (Technical) is correct in holding that in Appeal No.ST/777/2009, the appellant is not entitled to take Cenvat credit to the tune of Rs. 2,59,95,327/- on shelters/parts as capital goods wherein the supplier has paid Excise duty on these items by classifying under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985" These were questions before the Larger Bench and the Larger Bench held as under:- "24. Further, it was contended by the appellants that even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent appeals are discussed elaborately on a similar set of facts by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Bharti Airtel Ltd. (supra). When there is a detailed examination and ruling on identical set of facts by the Hon'ble High Court, the same are to be followed. Further, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court reiterated their findings arrived in Bharti Airtel Ltd. (supra) in the case of Vodafone India Ltd. in their order dated 1-9-2015 in civil appeal No.126/2015 and others [2015 (40) S.T.R. 422 (Bom.) - 2015 (324) E.L.T. 434 (Bom.)]. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court examined various contentions now raised in these appeals and reiterated their findings recorded earlier in Bharti Airtel Ltd. (supra). 44. In the light of the above analyses and conclusions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
