TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Smt. Krati Somani, Advocate, for the Appellant. Sh. Satya Pal, A.R for the Respondent. Per : Devender Singh These appeals have been filed against the order No. 147/ANS/PCK/2009 dated 28.05.2009 and 141/ANS/PCK/2009 dated 26.05.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-III, Gurgaon. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants who are manufactures of sugar and molasses had taken Cenvat Credit on certain items namely columns, fabricated beams, structure and staging. These items have been used for erection and support of fabricated structures in the sugar molasses mill machinery. The aforesaid items had been classified under 84389010 and credit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarvesh Refractories (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE C, - 2007 (218) ELT 488 (SC) . The said judgment of the Apex Court, she added has been followed by this Tribunal in many pronouncements and one of them was in the case of Newlight Hotels Resorts Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of C.Ex. S.T., Vadodara 2016 (44) S.T.R. 258 (Tri. Ahmd.) . 4. The Ld. A.R. appearing for the Revenue contended that the goods were wrongly classified by the manufacturer and the department was justified in applying correct classification based on the actual usage of goods in the recipients factory. He also reiterated the findings in the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Heard both the parties and perused the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 84.27 from 84.29, as declared by the manufacturer. Insofar as the penalty imposed by the authority-in-original is concerned, we are of the view that a case for imposition of penalty is not made out and accordingly the same is set aside and deleted. Rest of the order of the Tribunal restoring the order of the authority-in-original is confirmed. 7. Given the above interpretation of law by the Apex Court, the department is not justified in seeking to the change the classification at the end of the recipients once the classification has been accepted by jurisdictional Central Excise Officer and assessment has been done on the basis of the manufacturer s classification. 8. In these circumstances, the impugned Orders-in-Appeal are set-as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
