9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the corresponding amount of CENVAT credit availed in respect of those good. This fact has been taken note of by the subsequent appellate orders produced by the ld. Consultant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/114/2011 - Final Order No. 40452 / 2018 - Dated:- 22-2-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri Adhitya Srinivasan, Consultant and Ms. Meghna Arvind, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The facts of the case are that the appellants were clearing industrial valves and other items from time to time under exemption Notification No. 22/2003-CE to EOU against CT3s an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of calibration, testing, assembly etc. carried on the impugned goods should be considered as manufacturing activity as the same goods when cleared to DTA after discharging central excise duty on transaction value. However, Commissioner (Appeals) has found fault with appellant that they have not submitted any documentary evidence, such as job card maintained in the factory, to establish that the above activities have been carried out on the impugned inputs. 2.2 For subsequent periods, against show cause notice issued on the very same issue, the Commissioners (Appeals) have decided in their favour. He submits copies of the Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 22 23/2013 (M-IV) dated 30.1.2013 and No. 123 124/2015 (M-IV) dated 2.6.2015 to support his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled in respect of those good. This fact has been taken note of by the subsequent appellate orders produced by the ld. Consultant. This finding is evident in para 10 of the Order-in-Appeal No. 22 23/2010 dated 31.1.2013 and in para 9 of the Order-in-Appeal No. 123 124/2015 dated 2.6.2015. when this is the case, the department cannot take a different stand in respect of supply of identical goods by appellant to EOUs and supplies against ICBs, department cannot then make an allegation that the very same goods on which central excise duty is collected on transaction value for other DTA clearances will now take on the hue of inputs removed as such. Further, even for inputs removed as such, the ratio laid down by the Hon ble High Court of Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
