9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit. The rough steel forgings manufactured on job work were cleared to the principal Manufacturer without payment of duty under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. and the principal manufacturer thereafter cleared the finished goods on payment of duty. The point of dispute is as to whether in such a situation, the appellant is eligible for Cenvat credit of duty on LDO, Furnace Oil and RFO. The Asstt. Commissioner holding that they would not be eligible for Cenvat credit of duty on LDO, Furnace Oil and RFO, which was used for manufacture of rough steel forgings on job work basis, which in turn, were cleared for manufacture of finished goods to the principal manufacturer, has, vide order-in-original dated 10-1-07 confirmed Cenvat credit demand of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of CCE, Raigad v. Mahalaxmi Seamless Ltd. (supra) is based on the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court's judgment in respect of appeal filed by the Deptt. (76/08) [2009 (244) E.L.T. A89 (Bom.)] wherein Hon'ble Mumbai High Court with regard to the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Sterlite Inds. (supra) observed that the judgment is based on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi reported in 2004 (171) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) and hence no question of law arises in the Revenue's appeal. Shri Hemant Bajaj pleaded that since issue involved in this case stands settled in favour of the appellant, the impugned order is not correct. 2.2 Shri Sansar Chand, ld. DR, pleaded that the ratio of the judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... steel forging are cleared at Nil rate of duty under Notification No. 214/86-C.E., which are used by principal manufacturer for manufacture of finished goods, which are cleared on payment of duty. The point of dispute is as to whether the appellants are eligible for Cenvat credit of duty on LDO, FO, RFO which was used in the manufacture of rough steel forgings which were cleared to the principal manufacturer at Nil rate of duty under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. I find that this issue is squarely covered in the appellant's favour by Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Pune (supra) and subsequent decisions of the Tribunal is based on the Larger Bench decision. I also find that the correct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
