2014 (3) TMI 46

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For the Respondent : Shri Rajendra G Borade, Representative PER : Ashok Jindal The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the adjudicating authority directing the respondent to reverse the CENVAT Credit taken by them on S.S. Wire. The respondent also filed a Cross Objection. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... respondents are not entitled to take the credit. To support his contention the learned A.R. relied on the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of CCE Bangalore vs. NTTF Industries Ltd. - 2004 (169) ELT 92 (Tri. Bang) and CCE Jaipur I vs. R.F.H. Metal Castings (P) Ltd. - 2005 ELT 194 (Tri. Del). 4. On the other hand, the authorized representative appearing on behalf of the respondents drew my....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... respondent whether the respondent can take the credit of duty paid invoices or not. Further in the case of R.F.H. Metal castings (P) Ltd. the issue before this Tribunal was that the goods were brought back to the factory for remaking as they were damaged during processing and the same were reduced to scrap and sold in that condition. The facts in the case in hand are totally different. Therefore,....