TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The applicant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 21-11-2006 upholding the order of the adjudicating authority by which Cenvat credit of Rs. 3,97,174/- was disallowed. The applicant also challenges the reduced penalty imposed by the Appellate Authority. 2. The learned Counsel for the applicant has pointed out from the Memo of Appeal, which was filed before the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, credit on these inputs, which were not used in the manufacture of the final product, was not allowable. 4. The wordings of Explanation 2 to Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules of 2004, are unambiguous. The word input would include, as provided therein, goods used in the manufacture of capital goods which are further used in the factory of the manufacturer. Even the Commissioner (Appeals) h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of inputs in the context of the said Explanation 2. 5. As regards Clean Flo, the learned Counsel has referred to the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana in CCE, Chandigarh v. J.C.T. Limited reported as 2003 (151) E.L.T. 508 (P H), in which it was held that, Clean Flo was to be regarded as input used in relation to manufacture of final products and eligible for Modvat c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
