2018 (3) TMI 918

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Appellant Shri Gyanendra Kumar Singh, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for Respondent Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar Above stated two appeals are taken together for decision because the issue involved in both the appeals is common and appeals are also filed by the same appellants for different periods. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of Sugar & Molasses. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... factured product. He has argued that in view of the said ruling, the contention of Revenue for recovery of amount under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the value of Bagasse is not tenable. 4. Heard the ld. A. R. for Revenue, who has supported the impugned orders. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the facts on record, I am satisfied that the issue involved in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X