TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kapil Vaish , C.A. for the appellants. Rep. by Sh. R.K. Gupta, DR for the respondent. Per: R.M.S. Khandeparkar: Heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and DR for the respondent. 2. Since common questions of law and facts arise in both the matters, appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Both the appeals arise from common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)Meeruton 30.11.2005. By the impugned order, the appeals filed by the appellants against the orders by the adjudicating authority were dismissed. The adjudicating authority by his two separate orders dated 16.05.2005 had disallowed the credit to the tune of Rs.5,59,781/- in total and ordered recovery thereof alon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in that regard was already allowed by the adjudicating authority and the same was not challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Though, the impugned order as well as that of the adjudicating authority is sought to be challenged on various grounds, it is not necessary to refer to all those grounds. Bare perusal of the orders passed by the lower authorities discloses that the authorities below while dealing with the issue regarding the claim of the appellants in respect of cenvat credit availment and utilization in relation to the duty paid on the above referred items, the authorities below by merely referring to clause (i) of Rule 2(b) of the said Rules has sought to deny the credit to all the items without analyzing whether suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit in that regard under the impugned order. The said finding of the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, could not be sustained. 7. Learned Advocate for the appellants has fairly conceded that the claim relating to items like economizer structure and cashing, M. S. Grating, Structure Material Columns Beams and Bracing, Ralling Post Assembly, Stair Case, would not sustain in view of the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global vs. CCE,Raipur reported in 2010 (253) 440 (T. LB). However, as regards other items, the adjudicating authority will have to consider the same in accordance with the provisions of law. 8. Records disclose that the appellants had claimed credit in relation to the duty paid on stainless pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
