2013 (10) TMI 327

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... K.S.V.V. Prasad, SDR ORDER Per Mathew John: As the issue involved in both the appeals is common, both the applications are taken up together for disposal. 2. The applicant is a manufacturer of paper. During the period Jan.09 to Sept.09 and subsequently for the period Oct.09 to Jun.10, they had taken CENVAT credit on certain equipments and machineries received by them for expansion of their .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... egard, he refers to list of machineries as narrated and specifically listed in paras 13 and 15 of the order, dated 29.06.2011. To buttress his argument for stay, he brings to the notice of the Bench that a similar matter has been considered by the Tribunal in their own case for the previous period and stay was granted, as has been reported in 2009-TIOL-776-CESTAT-MAD and in Misc. Order No.40351201 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r erection. The dispute relating support structures built as immovable property in a factory are on a different footing about which there have been many disputes. Since this case is about credit on equipments and machineries the applicant has a very strong prima facie case in their favour and calling for any pre-deposit will tilt the balance of convenience against the applicant. 7. Therefore, we .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X