9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ie case and therefore, we waive recovery of pre-deposit of entire amount of duty with interest and penalty imposed upon the appellant and stay recovery of the same during the pendency of the appeal - E/S/960/2008, E/775/2008 - S/1413/2008-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 24-11-2008 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY : Shri J.C. Patel, Advocate, for the Appellant. Dr. M.K. Rajak, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. - The appellants are seeking waiver of pre-deposit and grant of stay against recovery of Cenvat credit of Rs. 2,06,32,909/- with interest and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed upon them in the impugned order. 2. Heard both sides. Learned advocate Shri J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmits that several decisions of the Tribunal support the case of the appellant. He has cited the following decisions. (a) M/s. India Cements Ltd. v. CCE, Tirupati - 2007 (8) S.T.R. 43 (Tri.-Bang.) = 2007 (216) E.L.T. 81 (Tribunal). (b) M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh - 2002 (139) E.L.T. 101 (Tri.-Del.) (c) CCE, Delhi v. M/s. Duracell (India) Pvt. Ltd. - 2001 (137) E.L.T. 882 (Tri.-Del.) (d) CCE, Mumbai v. M/s. GTC Industries Ltd. - 2008 (12) S.T.R. 468 (Tri.-LB) (e) CCE, Rajkot v. M/s. Rolex Rings Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 (230) E.L.T. 569 (Tri.) = 2008 (86) RLT 201 (CESTAT-Ahbad.) (f) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Rajkot CESTAT Ahmedabad's Order No. S/439/WZB/AHD/08, dt. 7-5-2008 [2009 (14) S.T.R. 287 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egal provisions. Prima facie, appellants have made a strong case as regards admissibility of the credit. Further, we find that in case of M/s. Duracell (India) Pvt. Ltd. - 2001 (137) E.L.T. 882 (Tri.-Del.), it was held that the input used even on the trial production in or in relation to manufacture of the final product regardless of the fact that any good quality final product, did not emerge out of the machine, are entitled for Modvat credit. The Commissioner has differentiated this decision on the ground that the decision related to Modvat credit on input under erstwhile Central Excise Rules and therefore is not applicable. This conclusion of the Commissioner is not very convincing and requires to be considered in detail. As regards cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
