)], The India Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE [2018 (6) TMI 581 -
CESTAT Chennai], M/s Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE [2018 (1) TMI
822- CESTAT Mumbai], Jaypee Rewa Plant Vs. CCE [2018 (9) TMI
633- CESTAT New Delhi] are cited in respect of availability of credits
on Railway track materials that had crystallised and settled the
issues as judicial precedent are binding on subsequent decisions. We
are in total agreement with his submissions, even though learned
E/85078, 85159, 85160, 88159/2013
8
Authorised Representative reiterates the findings of the
Commissioner we found no substance in his order to confirm the
same in denying credits to the Appellant in respect of other inputs,
admissible to the Appellant. Hence the order.
)], The India Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE [2018 (6) TMI 581 -
CESTAT Chennai], M/s Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE [2018 (1) TMI
822- CESTAT Mumbai], Jaypee Rewa Plant Vs. CCE [2018 (9) TMI
633- CESTAT New Delhi] are cited in respect of availability of credits
on Railway track materials that had crystallised and settled the
issues as judicial precedent are binding on subsequent decisions. We
are in total agreement with his submissions, even though learned
E/85078, 85159, 85160, 88159/2013
8
Authorised Representative reiterates the findings of the
Commissioner we found no substance in his order to confirm the
same in denying credits to the Appellant in respect of other inputs,
admissible to the Appellant. Hence the order.
)], The India Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE [2018 (6) TMI 581 -
CESTAT Chennai], M/s Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE [2018 (1) TMI
822- CESTAT Mumbai], Jaypee Rewa Plant Vs. CCE [2018 (9) TMI
633- CESTAT New Delhi] are cited in respect of availability of credits
on Railway track materials that had crystallised and settled the
issues as judicial precedent are binding on subsequent decisions. We
are in total agreement with his submissions, even though learned
E/85078, 85159, 85160, 88159/2013
8
Authorised Representative reiterates the findings of the
Commissioner we found no substance in his order to confirm the
same in denying credits to the Appellant in respect of other inputs,
admissible to the Appellant. Hence the order.
)], The India Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE [2018 (6) TMI 581 -
CESTAT Chennai], M/s Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE [2018 (1) TMI
822- CESTAT Mumbai], Jaypee Rewa Plant Vs. CCE [2018 (9) TMI
633- CESTAT New Delhi] are cited in respect of availability of credits
on Railway track materials that had crystallised and settled the
issues as judicial precedent are binding on subsequent decisions. We
are in total agreement with his submissions, even though learned
E/85078, 85159, 85160, 88159/2013
8
Authorised Representative reiterates the findings of the
Commissioner we found no substance in his order to confirm the
same in denying credits to the Appellant in respect of other inputs,
admissible to the Appellant. Hence the order.
In the case of M/s.Heidelberg Cement (India) Ltd. and Ultra
Tech Cement Ltd. Vs CCE - 2021 (8) TMI 251 CESTAT MUMBAI [2015
(315) ELT 53 (Tri.-Mumbai) the issue as to whether both the
conditions in Rule 2A has to be read conjunctly or disjunctively was
discussed. Relevant para of the order reads as under :
(a) (Vide para-3): as a general principle, the decision laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of Ispat Industries
Ltd. may be applied to the extent that 'place of removal' is
required to be determined with reference to 'point of sale'
with the condition that 'place of removal' is to be referred
with reference to the premises of the manufacturer.