Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 2]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Cce, Panchkula vs M/S. Shahbad Co-Op Sugar Mills Ltd on 25 April, 2014

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI

PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III

		

Excise  Appeal No. 1361 of  2011-EX [SM]

Excise Cross Application No. 213 of 2011

	

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal  No. 741/CEx/D-ll/2010 dated 23.11.2010   passed   by  Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula]





For approval and signature:



Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)



1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?




No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 


No
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?


     Seen  
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
        Yes


	

CCE, Panchkula				                              	  Appellants  	





 Vs.	





M/s. Shahbad Co-Op Sugar Mills Ltd.		                  	   Respondent 

Appearance:

Shri B.B.Sharma, AR for the Appellants Shri O.P.Batla, Consultant for the Respondent Date of Hearing: 25.04.2014 ORDER NO. FO/ 51895/2014- (SM) Per Archana Wadhwa:
The short issue involved in the appeal of the Revenue is as to whether the respondents are entitled to avail the credit of duty paid on MS plates which have been used for fabrication of boiler as also on repair activities by treating the same as cenvatable inputs. Commissioner (Appeals) has granted benefit to the respondents by referring to Boards circular No. B-4/7/2000-TRU dated 3.4.2000. I also find that the issue is covered by various decisions of the High Courts :
1. Ambuja Cements Eastern Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur [2010 (256) ELT 690 (Chhattisgarh)]
2. Hindustan Zinc vs. Union of India [2008 (228) ELT 517 (Raj.)]
3. CCE, Bangalore-I vs. Alfred Herbert (India) Ltd.

[2010 (257) ELT 29 (Kar.)]

2. Infact I also find the same appellants case involving the same issue was rejected by the Tribunal in the case of CCE Panchkula vs. Shahbad Co-op Sugar Mills Ltd. [ 2013 (298) ELT 421 (Tri-Del)].

3. By following the same I reject the present appeal also.


      (Pronounced in the open Court)







                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                (  Archana Wadhwa  )        							           	Member(Judicial)

ss



??



??



??



??









2