9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent. ORDER Heard Sri Dipak Seth, Advocate, for appellant and Sri Rajesh Tewari, Advocate, for respondent. 2. This appeal under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1944") has arisen from judgment and order dated 13-7-2015 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Customs App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Unit Kundarki, Gonda, U.P.? iii. Whether, the adjudicating authority was right in disallowing Cenvat credit of Rs. 27,77,221/- taken and utilized by M/s. Bajaj Hindustan Limited, Unit Kundarki, Gonda, U.P. on construction of dormitory?" 3. However, during the course of argument, we find that there is another substantial question of law which is founded on a basic fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh order of Commissioner and find that assessee claimed before Commissioner that dormitory within the precinct of factory but this fact was seriously disputed by Revenue. Divisional Assistant Commissioner vide letter dated 21-2-2011 submitted a photocopy of layout of factory premises showing that Dormitory in question has been constructed outside factory premises. The observations made by Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aspect has not specifically recorded his own conclusion whether Dormitory was outside the factory premises or not. In fact, Commissioner has proceeded to examine whether there was any nexus between the said Dormitory and manufacture of final product and business activities so as to attract benefit of Cenvat credit but once a basic fact that Dormitory is outside the factory premises is disputed, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
