2012 (11) TMI 150

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le.   1. Heard both sides. 2. Revenue filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.05/Kol-VI/2012 dated 18.01.2012 whereby ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has set aside the lower adjudicating authority s order. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondents are engaged in the manufacture of refractory ceramic goods falling under chapter 69 and 38 of first schedule to CETA, 1985. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 97 (Kar) set aside the lower adjudicating authority s order and allowed the appeal of the respondent. Hence revenue is in appeal. 4. The contention of the Revenue is that after the final products are cleared from the place of removal there will be no scope of subsequent service to be treated as inputs. Therefore CENVAT Credit is not admissible. In support of their contention they placed reliance....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vice Tax, LTU, Bangalore vs. M/s.ABB Ltd. 2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar). 5.2 Ld.Advocate for the respondent also contended that even though the SLP was filed against the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of ABB Ltd. (supra), the same had also not been admitted by the Apex Court and there was no stay against the same.   6. We have considered the submissions of both sides a....