9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate for the Appellants. Shri. S. N. Prasad, SDR for the Respondents. ORDER Per: Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) 1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order-in-original No.28/IDG(13)/Commr(Adj)/05 dated 31/01/2006. 2. The issue involved in this case is whether the appellants are eligible to avail the credit of the duty on the goods, which were procured by them on lease. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is his submission that once the capital goods are leased, the credit can be availed by the respondent only after payment of entire duty to the lease company. 5. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 6. It is seen from the record that the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the respondents own case and against the very same order-in-original has held as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound or explained why the notice could not be issued within the normal period, if Revenues view was the correct interpretation. There is nothing on record to indicate why they delayed the issue of the notice. We can conclude that Revenues view was what the assessee held & found by us that the Rule does not stipulate any such condition. There appears to be a change in Revenues interpretation/view. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as well as on limitation set aside the impugned order. The impugned order having been set aside on the grounds of limitation as well as on merits, does not survive even in the appeal of the revenue. Since the issue is squarely covered in favour of the respondent herein in their own appeal against the very same order-in-original, respectfully following the same and dismiss the appeal filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
