9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1020X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER The appeal by Revenue is against order dated 30.05.2008 of Commissioner (A) Meerut. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses liable to central excise duty. In 2005 they have undertaken substantial expansion of their existing capacity. The respondents were located in Uttarakhand and eligible for area based exemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the said notification. The respondent deliberately chosen to delay the availment of exemption notification in order to avail credit on various capital goods. As such credit denied on capital goods is legal and proper. 4. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. 5. We have perused the appeal records and heard the Ld. AR. 6. The fact that various capital goods were receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 112) ELT 353 (SC) & 1996 (85) ELT A67 (SC), Tribunal's decision in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE-2005 (187) ELT 318 (T-Mumbai) and Kerala High Court's order in the case of CCE Vs. Premier Tyres-2001 (113) ELT 417 (Kerala). As admitted in the grounds of appeal, in these cases it has been held that if an assessee avails Cenvat Credit on capital goods while manufacturing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
