TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. ORDER The Revenue has filed the present appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. CEX/AKD/162/NSK/APL/2006, dated 11-7-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Customs (Appeals), Nashik. 2. The brief facts are that the respondent is engaged in manufacture of CTR Bars, MS Round, MS Angles, MS Flats, MS Squares Gate Channel i.e. hot-re-rollable products falling under Chapter 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant also filed classification declaration under Rule 173B and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944. In both the aforesaid declarations, respondent had declared rolling mills along with auxiliary equipments designed for rolling mills falling under Chapter Heading 8455 as a fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts for which they had applied for a registration and started assembling the machineries for manufacture of the final excisable product. They also filed a declaration under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules and submitted the same to the Divisional office on 24-2-2000. If the declaration filed was erroneous, the office could have returned the declaration to him with suitable remarks instead of sending a team of officers to withdraw the documents on which they had proposed to avail Cenvat credit. They had started building of the factory from Sept., 1999 by having the foundation work and placement of orders for different inputs done as a precautionary commencement of production and the compounded levy scheme was to be operative only till 1-4-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h clearly states that rolling mills and induction furnaces received in the factory during the period 1-9-1997 to 31-3-2000 will not be eligible for Modvat credit on capital goods. 4. The learned AR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal raised in the appeal memorandum. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the same be upheld. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that as the respondent unit was under gestation stage, and had not commenced/produced before 2-5-2000, there can be no applicability of Rule 3A provisions. Accordingly, I find no infirmity in the impugned order and uphold the same. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. (P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
