2013 (11) TMI 1292

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... main appellant and penalty of Rs.1 lakh on the individual. The adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand on the main appellant on the ground that the appellant had availed CENVAT Credit of the capital goods which were received by them during the period when the final product manufactured out of the said capital goods is exempted from payment of duty. 2. Ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would take us through the factual position and submits that the appellant had received the capital goods during the period October 2010 to February 2011, which according to him is a bottle forming and sealing machine. It is his submission that the said machine was purchased by the appellant for utilizing the same in manufacturing of f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the Apex Court did not uphold the decision in the case of Surya Roshni Ltd, but dismissed the appeal filed by M/s Surya Roshni Ltd as not maintainable. M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. filed an appeal before Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and their Lordships, after framing the question of law, admitted the appeal. It is his submission that on this background, it has to be noted that the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Gujarat Propack 2009 (234) ELT 409 (Guj.), was considering an identical issue and has held that credit of the Central Excise duty paid on capital goods if it is put to use for manufacturing of dutiable product, can be allowed. 3. Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, would draw our attention to t....