9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 989X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. AKP/38/NSK/2010 dated 22.02.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise Customs, Nasik, wherein the Ld. Commissioner rejected the Appeal filed by the Appellant, however the penalty Rs. 3,49,724/- imposed by the Adjudicating Authority was reduced to Rs. 2000/-. 2. The brief facts of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or CENVAT credit, accordingly the CENVAT credit was disallowed by the adjudicating authority in the Order-in-Original No. 210/2010 dated 12.11.2010. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who by accepting the view of the adjudicating authority, upheld the demand of CENVAT credit, however the penalty of equal amount of Rs. 3,49,724/- was reduced to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he fact that May, 2009 onwards, no goods have been cleared under exemption is undisputed, therefore the credit should not have been denied. 5. On the other hand Shri N.N. Prabhu Desai, learned Superintendent (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that it is admitted fact that in May, 2009 the appellant have cleared the goods under exemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under exemption during and after the renovation and modernization of plant of the appellant. With these undisputed fact, I do not see any reason why the CENVAT credit on the input services should not be allowed when the service is related to the manufacturing of dutiable goods. I therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (Operative portion of the order pronounced in open Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
