TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 89
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; Per: Mr. H.K. Thakur; Appeal No.E/3451/2005 was filed by M/s. Deeykar Aluminium Pvt. Limited against Order-in-Appeal No. VP/307/VAPI/2005 dated 28.07.2005, on the grounds that the Cenvat credit on the quantity of furnace oil which was used by them in the manufacture of goods on job work basis under Notification No.214/86-CE dated 25/07/1986 read with Rule 57A(5) of Central Excise Rules, cannot be denied under Rule 57AD. Appeal No.E/3532/2005 against the same Order-in-Appeal dated 28.07.2005 was filed by Revenue on the grounds that Commissioner (Appeals) has erred by not confirming interest on wrong availment of Cenvat credit as required under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and also e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in Tax Appeal No.213/2011 for fresh consideration. 4. Heard both sides. 5. Shri P.V. Sheth, learned advocate on behalf of the appellant argued that the issue is no more res-integra as the same has now been settled by a number of CESTAT judgments, especially in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Limited vs. CCE, Pune [2005 (183) ELT 353 (Tri. LB)]. He therefore, argued that the appeal may be allowed as is covered by settled law. 6. Learned A.R. on the other hand reiterates the stand taken by Commissioner (Appeals). 7. We have carefully gone through the records of the case as well as the rival submissions made. It is observed that the issue was under litigation for quite some time but was settled by CESTAT Larger Bench judgment in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t would still be allowed so long as duty is paid on the final product. 9. In cases of manufacturers like the Appellants the final product is the tractor. The intermediate product would be parts which are manufactured for being used in the tractor. In such a case the parts would not be the final product. Thus Rule 57C would have no application. The mere fact that the parts are cleared from one factory of the Appellants to another factory of the Appellants would not disentitle the Appellant from claiming benefit of Notification No. 217/86-C.E., dated 2nd April, 1986. As stated above, the Notification itself clarifies that the inputs can be used within the factory of production or in any other factory of the same manufacturer.By applying the ....