9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hi (AC) AR for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar Appeal No. E/2544/2011 is arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 70/CE/APPL/ALLD/2011 dated 13.06.2011 and Appeal No. E/1680/2012 is arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 41/CE/APPL/ALLD/2012 dated 30.03.2012. Both Order-in-Appeals are passed by Commissioner (Appeal), Central Excise, Allahabad. Appeal No. E/2544/2011 2. Brief facts of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- availed on capital goods received in Renusagar Power Plant. The issue was decided through Order-in-Original dated 29.07.2010. In respect of Cenvat Credit of duty paid on capital goods used in mines, appellant relied on ruling of Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Cement reported at 2006 (197) ELT 145 (SC) and in respect of Cenvat Credit and Central Excise duty paid on capital goods received in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order Revenue preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The said appeal was decided through impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 13.06.2011 wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the said Order-in-Original dated 29.07.2010 and remanded the matter back to the Original Authority to readjudicate the same taking into account the review order dated 01.09.2010 passed by the Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants manufacturing unit and that the said power plant and the manufacturing unit of the appellant have to be considered as one integrated unit and therefore, Cenvat Credit was admissible to the appellant. 4. Heard the learned AR who has supported impugned Order-in-Appeal. 5. Having considered the rival contentions I find forced in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal dated 13.06.2011 in Appeal No. E/2544/2011 it has already been held that said Order-in-Appeal dated 13.06.2011 is not sustainable and has been set aside in earlier part of this order I, therefore, hold that neither Order-in-Original dated 02.11.2011 nor impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 30.03.2012 are sustainable. Further due to reasons stated above, Appeal No. E/1620/2012 has become infructuou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
