2012 (8) TMI 319

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Per Mathew John:   The Respondent were manufacturers of excisable goods namely M.S. Ingots. They had availed input credit of excise duty on M.S, Angles and M.S. Channel, beams, plates etc. Revenue made out a case that they could not have taken Cenvat credit of duty paid on such items because such items are not used in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots. 2. The case of the Respondents is t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... cranes.   4. The Respondents also argue on the issue of time bar because Show Cause Notice for disallowing the credit taken in the year 2004 was issued on 8th August, 2008.   5. I have considered arguments on both the sides. Even after the decisions in the case of Vandana Global (supra) and Saraswati Sugar Mills (supra) there can be a doubt about inputs used in the manufacture of ....