TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 674X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the adjudicating authorities vide the impugned order. The law in this respect is settled that if credit originally availed is reversed subsequently it would amount to as if not credit has been awaited. Support drawn from the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CHANDRAPUR MAGNET WIRES (P) LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF C. EXCISE, NAGPUR [ 1995 (12) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT] . It is observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the decision of this Tribunal as well as of Hon ble Madras High Court which are based on the aforesaid decision of Hon ble Supreme Court. There is no infirmity in the order under challenge, the same is accordingly upheld - Appeal of Revenue is dismissed. - MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND DR. RACHNA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s conceded that the issue involved stands decided in favour of the Assessee-Respondent in their own case. It has further mentioned that the decision of Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE, Thane-I vs. Nicholas Piramal (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2009 (244) ELT 321 (Bom.) has wrongly been ignored. The finding in order-in-original are reiterated with the prayer that Order-in-Appeal be set-aside and the Department s Appeal be allowed. 5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-Assessee on the other hand has mentioned that on the present issue of reversal of the credit availed on common input services, the demand for the period April-2009 to March, 2013 in assessee's own case has been settled vide Final Order no. 51578/2019-CU (DB) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision of this Tribunal as well as of Hon ble Madras High Court which are based on the aforesaid decision of Hon ble Supreme Court. 7. The said settled position and that the same has been discussed not only by the Department in their order as has been brought to notice by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent even in appellant s own case, but in other following decisions of the Tribunal:- Bhingar Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. Commissioner 2016 (41) S.T.R. 673 (Tri. Mum.) IPCA Laboratories Ltd. Vs CCE, Indore-2015 (40) S.T.R. 771 (Tri. Del.) Punj Lloyd Ltd. Vs CCE, Rohtak-2015 (40) S.T.R. 1028 (Tri. Del.) 8. In view of entire above discussion, we hereby hold that there is no infirmity in the order under challenge, the same is accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
