9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adjudication process. The Learned Commissioner should have examined that whether such ISO tank falls under the category of inputs and accordingly decided the matter on that basis. We are of the view that merely because the appellant under a belief treated the ISO tank as capital goods and taken the credit under that account does not make them disentitled for the Cenvat credit, if otherwise available on ISO tank has input. Therefore, not considering this aspect by the adjudicating authority is clearly violation of principles of Natural Justice. Merely because the appellant have taken the credit under the capital goods but if it is available under input, the credit should be extended. However, since the Commissioner has not examined the ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial if the value thereof is included in the assessable value of final product. It is his submission that in view of the board circulars the appellant are clearly entitled for the Cenvat credit. He further submits that merely because initially the appellant have availed the Cenvat credit under capital goods account credit cannot be denied as the same is eligible as inputs. In support he placed reliance on the following judgments and circulars:- Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX. Dated 01.07.2002 Circular having F. No. 354/81/2000-TRU, Dated 30-6-2000 Dated 30.06.2000 Parle Beverages Ltd. versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai 2000 (124) ELT 803 (Tri) Banco Products (India) Ltd versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Vadodara-I 2008 (224) ELT. 560 (Tri. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise, Bombay 1994(73) E.L.T.257 (SC) Lumbini Beverages Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Patna 2012(284) E.L.T. 695 (Tri. Kolkata) Miltech Industries Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune-III 2011(263) E.L.T. 635 (Tri. Mumbai) PKPN Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. versus Commissioner 2015 (315) E.L.T. A180 (Mad.) Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Raipur 2014 (311) E.L.T. 709 (Tri. - Del.) G. Claridge Company Ltd. versus Collector of Central Excise 1991 (52) E.L.T. 341 (S.C.) GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I 2008 (224) E.L.T. 560 (Tri. - Mumbai) 3. Shri Tara Prakash Learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue, reiterates the findings of the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
