TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 434
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es rolled steel. Three companies are separate legal entities and the entire operation in respect of all aspects, is treated as separate by each company and expenses / income is divided in the ratio agreed upon by the three companies. M/s Praxair India Ltd. situated besides ML was supplying gases Oxygen & Nitrogen to the three companies through parallel pipelines. While it is an admitted fact that in respect of the expenses and income, the same were shared in the ratio agreed upon, only in respect of oxygen gas as input, Cenvat credit of duty paid on oxygen was taken by ML only. It is also admitted that credits on other inputs are taken separately. Revenue took a view that this was not proper and credit of duty paid should have been taken in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted that duties, interest and penalties as imposed on all the parties may be restored as per original adjudication order. Nevertheless, I find myself in agreement with learned counsel who submits that even though one appeal might have been sufficient, the Revenue should have issued notices to all the persons mentioned in the prayer so that they could get an opportunity to defend their case. That being the position, the objection taken by learned counsel is accepted and appeal filed by Revenue is considered to have filed only in respect of ML. This is in view of the fact that CESTAT rules also require separate appeals to be filed and CESTAT also has not issued notices to others. 4. Learned AR submits that in this case admittedly ML, KFIL ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Cement vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore [2006 (194) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)], Reliance Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Raigad [2007 (215) E.L.T. 413 (Tri.-Mumbai)] and Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Meerut [2001 (129) E.L.T. 73 (Tri.-Del.)]. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has relied upon the Tribunal decision in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. and only ground taken by Revenue is that the appeal has been filed against this decision. He submits that the appeal filed by Revenue against this decision has been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, appeal is not sustainable. 6. I have considered the detailed submissions made by both sides. I am unable to co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eparately. When I am coming to the argument advanced by learned AR that there was actual segregation of quantity of oxygen, I find that paragraph 21 of the show-cause notice and paragraph 4 of 'Grounds of Appeal' have been relied upon by learned AR to make this submission. Ongoing through these paragraphs, I find that these are based on the submissions by Shri S.B. Jhaveri, Vice President of ML in August 2003 which is in the middle of the period we are concerned with. Even in paragraph 21 it is clearly stated that the estimates were given for future period and not for the past period. Further there is no evidence to support the claim that the appellants had correct quantity of oxygen consumed by the three units and therefore there was delib....