9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irected against the impugned order dated 21.04.2009 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the appellant and upheld the order-in-original. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of pet bottles availing CENVAT credit facility on inputs as well as capital goods. The preventive officers of the department visited the factory on 11.7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit Rules 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act. After following the due process of law the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. Aggrieved by the said order appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who upheld the order. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law because ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; 468 (Tri-Ahmd)] 5) CCE Vs Navodhaya Plastic Industries Ltd [2013 (398)ELT 541 (Tri-LB)] He further submitted that though there was no provision to reverse the credit of used capital goods during the impugned period and the provision requiring reversal of credit on used capital goods @ 2.5% per quarter was brought on 13.11.2007 i.e. after the date of removal of capital goods by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the findings of the impugned order. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the judgements cited at Bar I am of the view that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the judgement of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Solectron Centrum Ltd and other judgements cited by the appellant. Following the ratio of the judgements cited (supra) I allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
