2016 (8) TMI 122

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Appellant Shri A.K.Biswas, Supdt.(AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Shri H. K. Thakur This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant against Order-in-Original No.19/COMMR/Denovo/2006 dated 29.11.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur as adjudicating authority. 2. Shri Ravi Raghavan (Advocate) and Shri Sourabh Bhutra (Advocate) appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Shri Ragha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ousand One Hundred and Seventy only) which has been reversed under entry No.2460 dated 01.11.1999 in their RG-23A part-II record. That the remaining credit of Rs. 1,26,992/-(Rupees One Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Two only) is being contested. That an amount of Rs. 1,61,740/-(Rupees One Lakh Sixty One Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty only) has been denied with respect to inputs .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... upon the following case laws of this Bench in their own case in support of his arguments :- (i) Tata Motors Ltd. v. CCE, JSR [2011 (264) ELT 385 (Tri.-Kol)] (ii) Tata Motors Ltd. v. CCE, JSR [2010 (252) ELT 265 (Tri.-Kol)] 2.1 Regarding defective duty paying documents, ld.Advocate argued that correct classification and description of the inputs is given by codes. That these inputs are known i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g on behalf of the Revenue argued that correct description was not given in the duty paying documents and also that the inputs are not directly used in the manufacture of finished goods. Ld.AR strongly defended the Order-in-Original passed by the adjudicating authority. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 5. So far as Cenvat Credit with respect to CS Spoon, Assembly, Canvass Canopy .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l)] when minor differences in the description of inputs was not considered a bar for taking credit. 5.1 From the case laws relied upon by the Appellant, it is observed that the issues stand settled in favour of the Appellant. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by this Bench, the Appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed. ( Dictated and pronounced in the open court )
Case la .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X