9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is directed against the impugned order dated 25.07.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi, upholding disallowance of cenvat credit in the adjudication order. 2. Shri Ashwini Sharma, the Id. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the disputed goods are inputs for the appellant, which are used in or in relation to manufacture of final products. The Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai [2013 (295) ELT 353 (SC)] 2. UOI vs. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. [2011 (263) ELT 48 (Chattisgarh) 3. CCE, Rohtak vs. J.B. Fashions Limited [2010 (262) ELT 122 (P&H) 4. CCE, Rajkot vs. Advance Diesels Engines Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (278) ELT 491 (Tri. Ahmd.)] 5. CCE, Hyderabad-III vs. Deepthi Formulation Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (286) ELT 396 (Tri. -Bang.)] 6. Cummins Diesel Sales & Serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e input and that the input has been received in the factory for use in the intended purpose. No prohibitions have been contained in the said rules, providing for denial of cenvat credit, in the eventuality, where the jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities at the supplier's end have disputed the classification of the excisable goods. In the present case, since the central excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the recipient's end cannot be questioned, in view of the fact that there is no specific prohibition/ stipulations provided under the Cenvat Credit Rules for the said purpose. In this connection, I find that the judgments/decisions cited by the (Id. Advocate for the appellant squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Considering the above, I am of the view that denial of cenvat bene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
