TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s produced. Therefore, the ground on which the adjudicating authority denying the credit, is not sustainable. Facts of the case are distinguishable from the facts of the case of Monica Electronics [1994 (11) TMI 215 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] , inputs were damaged prior to issuance for manufacture, means ‘inputs' were not gone into manufacturing process, therefore, credit is inadmissible but in this case ‘inputs' gone in the process of manufacturing and capital goods were also in use therefore, credit cannot be denied – Relying upon the decision in the case of CCE vs Indichem Electronics –[2002 (9) TMI 195 - CEGAT, CHENNAI] and Motor Industries Co Ltd. vs CCE-[2004 (1) TMI 492 - CESTAT, BANGALORE]wherein this Tribunal has held that when the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cating authority admitted the fact that the capital goods were used by the appellant and the inputs were also gone into manufacturing process but denied credit on the ground that as the appellant has claimed insurance for the loss of inputs/in-process material/capital goods from the Insurance Company, therefore, credit cannot be allowed. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who in turn denied CENVAT credit by relying on the decision of Monica Electronics vs. CCE-1995 (75) ELT 440 (T). Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned Counsel Shri D.B. Shroff, Sr. Advocate appeared for the appellant and submitted that the capital goods were used by the appellant and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the appellant. Therefore, the ground on which the adjudicating authority denying the credit, is not sustainable. The first appellate authority denied the CENVAT credit by relying on the decision of Monica Electronics (supra) . The facts in this case are distinguishable from the facts of the case of Monica Electronics (supra) , inputs were damaged prior to issuance for manufacture. It means that inputs' were not gone into manufacturing process, therefore, credit is inadmissible but in this case, it is not in dispute that inputs' have gone in the process of manufacturing and capital goods were also in use therefore, credit cannot be denied. In the case of CCE vs Indichem Electronics -2003 (151) ELT 393 (T) and Motor Industries Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
