TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore. Thus, for all the above reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in the facts of the present case at this stage. The submissions made on behalf of the appellant would require consideration in depth and the same could appropriately only be done at the time of final hearing of its appeal before the Tribunal - However, the time to make the pre-deposit stands extended from 30 November 2013 to 31 January 2014 and on producing evidence of the same before the Tribunal - Following decision of Furniture Products Ltd. v. CCE [2009 (12) TMI 606 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L)NO.254 OF 2013 - - - Dated:- 4-12-2013 - MOHIT S. SHAH And M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1.27 Crores being the Cenvat credit availed by the appellant on input services utilized in its trading activities for the period November 2006 to March 2011. The appellant contested the show cause notice on the ground that the manufacturer of the goods being traded by them were paying excise duty at the appellant's selling price of the traded goods. Therefore, credit is admissible to them even in respect of traded goods. Besides it was contended that in any view of the matter they are entitled to enjoy Cenvat credit in respect of input services used in its manufacturing activities. (d) By an order dated 26 December 2012, the Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the show cause notice demanding a sum of Rs.1.27 Crores being the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ehalf of as the appellant that appellant was entitled to input credit in respect of service used in its trading activities as appellant was admittedly manufacturer of goods. Besides, the manufacturer of the traded goods had in any event paid excise duty on the appellant's selling price of traded goods. Moreover, the appellant contends that the issue raised in the present appeal is covered in their favour by the order of the Tribunal on stay application in BHEL GE Turbine Service Ltd. v/s. Commissioner of Central Excise 2010 (19) STR 909 and Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Commissioner of Central Excise 2011 (24) STR 346 wherein it is contended that stay was granted in respect of Cenvat credit taken even in respect of services used in respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h examination is not expected. The appellant also placed reliance upon the decision of the Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd. v/s. Commissioner of Central excise (25) STR 268, we find that in this case also the Tribunal was concerned with rule 6 and not rule 2 (1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as in this case (Although it does hold that the appellant before it is not entitled to input services in respect of non-dutiable goods). 7. As against the above, we find that an identical issue as framed by the Tribunal in the impugned order had come up for consideration before the Tribunal in India Furniture Products Ltd. v. CCE [2010] 250 ELT 38 (Tri-Chennai) where the Tribunal directed deposit of the proportionate input credit attributable to traded g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
