9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 21/2008 dated 24-1-2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Bangalore. 2. Shri C.R. Raghavendra, the learned Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant and Smt. Sudha Koka, the learned SDR, for the Revenue. 3. I heard both sides. 4. The appellants purchased Capital Machinery in 1998 and availed Cenvat credit on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit, it was argued that the appellants were getting double benefit. 4.2 The learned Advocate invited my attention to the following two decisions:- (i) Biopac India Corpn. Ltd. v. CCE, Vapi - 2008 (224) E.L.T. 548 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (ii) Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai - 2008 (223) E.L.T. 514 (Tri.-Mumbai) These two decisions are directly on the issue at hand. In the Biopac India case ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as decided in the case of Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Tirunelveli - 2005 (190) E.L.T. 450 (Tri.-Bang.). Infact, only in the year 2007, a Notification No. 39/2007-C.E.(N.T.) dated 13-11-2007 had been issued providing for reversal of credit in case of removal of old and used Capital Goods by allowing specified depreciations. Therefore, there was a prayer for allowing the appeal. 4.3 The learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce, which is inclusive of Excise Duty, is not at all relevant. This position has already been affirmed by the case-laws cited. Moreover, this issue is covered by the two case-laws cited supra. In my view, the impugned order has no merits. Hence, I set aside the same and allow the appeal with consequential relief.
(Pronounced and dictated in open Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
