2018 (4) TMI 959

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dated 02.04.2012.? Held that: - On being confronted, learned counsel for the respondents could not satisfy the Court nor sustain the impugned order in view of this ground of challenge, therefore, in this view of the matter, we are of the view that the Tribunal has erred on the aforesaid count - The adjudicating authority order could not have been set aside by the Tribunal without dealing with .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Appeal No.E/96 of 2012;M/s Kumbhi Chini Mills vs. Commissioner Central Excise, Lucknow. The appeal is admitted on the following questions of law:- ( 1) Whether the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad is correct in setting aside the order in original dated 12.11.2010 and the order in appeal dated 29.09.2011 on the basis of Circular No.964/07/2012-CX dated 02.04.2012 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pter 72 73, which have been used in the structural and supporting structure of the sugar machinery, erected, fabricated and installed/ embedded to earth as immovable property, which is outside the purview of Central Excise Tarrif and thus nondutiable, therefore, the Cenvat Credit is not admissible on the impugned items and the duty paid thereon is not reimbursable in the light of Rule 6 read wit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X