2011 (4) TMI 1196

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ] Per Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar: Heard the DR for the appellant and learned Advocate for the respondents. 2. This appeal arises from order dated 19.04.2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Ghaziabad. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the department against the order passed by the adjudicating authority. The Deputy Commissioner, Ghaziabad b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ts on the ground that the said inputs were neither brought into factory nor any manufacturing activity /processing was carried out thereon. The respondents contested the proceedings while contending that the inputs in question were received by them at different sites of the project awarded to them by M/s GAIL and that the project were funded by Asian Development Bank. It was further case of the re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... efit of credit on such inputs to the respondents. It was the specific case of the respondents that the goods were subjected to payment of duty, they were duly received by the respondent they were utilized in the final product manufactured by the respondents, and the final product was a dutiable product. All these facts were never in dispute in the entire proceedings and being so, we do not find an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X