TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 881
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing for the appellant and Shri R.K. Mathur, ld. DR appearing for Revenue. 3. As per facts on record, appellant is engaged in the manufacture of LPG cylinder bungs, VP rings, MV parts, forgings etc. The said activity was being carried out by the appellant in their factory B-10, Dhanpati Industrial Estate, Najafgarh, Delhi. Their factory premises were put to search by Central Excise Officers on 25-5-2005 and 11-6-2005. On verification, it was found that said premises were sold by the appellant to one M/s. Pile Foundation on 2-11-2004. The officers also found that the said premises were being used by a Metro contractor. Statement of Shri Anil Kumar Verma, Proprietor of the appellant was recorded on 2-6-2005 and 26-7-2005. In the said statemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of the Tribunal was put to challenge before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi who remanded the matter for fresh consideration. 5. The facts in the instant case are not in dispute. Before I proceed to decide the same, I would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the Hon'ble High Court's decision :- "5. We have considered the reasoning and the order passed by the tribunal and find that he aforesaid contentions have not been dealt with and examined. Sale of building is one aspect, but the other question which is important and relevant, is whether or not the appellant had continued to operate or do business from the said premises during the period in question. The invoices etc. have to be examined along with the other material and evidence. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f excise duty on the said final product. The question is that whether in such a scenario, Revenue can proceed to deny the Cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of final product (though at Bhiwadi) which stands cleared by the appellant on payment of duty. Revenue has not denied the fact that ER-1 returns showing payment of duty on the final product was being regularly filed by the appellant. Revenue is silent on the payment of duty on the goods manufactured and reflected in the said ER-1. In my views, denial of credit alone without taking into consideration the fact that such credit was used by the appellant for payment of duty on their final product which were got manufactured at Bhiwadi on job work basis is neith....