TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of pipes from bringing water from a far of source to the factory for use in or relation to the manufacture of finished excisable goods as admissible. - Decision in the case of Birla Corporation Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise [2005 (7) TMI 104 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] followed - Decided in favor of assessee. - Appeal No. E/1150/2008, Application No. E/MA(Extn)/16828/2014 - Order No. A/11112 / 2015 - Dated:- 27-7-2015 - H K Thakur, Member (T) For the Petitioner : Shri Dhaval Shah, Adv For the Respondent : Shri T K Sikdar, AR ORDER Per H. K. Thakur This appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. Commr.(A)/71/VDR-I/2008 under which CENVAT credit was disallowed to the appellant with respect to duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Commissioner (Appeals) in Para 5.5 of OIA Dated 15.05.2008-13.06.2008. It was his case that inputs/capital goods have to be used only in the factory of manufacture of finished goods to be eligible for CENVAT credit under Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present appeals is regarding use of pipes in the manufacture of gas pipeline from the unit of the appellant to the supply point of GAIL. From the case law relied upon by the first appellate authority and the Learned Advocate during the course of hearing, it is observed that there were divergent views expressed on the issue. However, CESTAT Ahmedabad in the case of Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs Commissioner of Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Central Excise came up in appeal before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1129/2003 impugning the aforesaid decision of the CEGAT. However, by order dated July 10, 2003 the appeal was dismissed in view of the fact that the learned Attorney General appearing for the Commissioner of Central Excise stated that he did not wish to press the appeal in view of the letter of the Department dated 5th June, 2003. The aforesaid letter reads as follows: Please refer to your office letter, dated 2nd May, 2003 on the above cited subject. In this connection it is to inform you that case of CCE, Chennai v. M/s. Pepsico India Holdings Ltd. Reported in 2001 (42) RLT 800 =2002-TIOL-197-CESTAT-MAD, Final order No. 1581/2000 dated 27-10-2000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
