2015 (10) TMI 2063

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pondents appeal by relying on the Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s. Vikram Cements Vs. CCE reported in 2006 (197) ELT 145(SC) The Revenue reviewed the said OIA and filed the present appeal. 2. The Ld. AR reiterated the grounds of appeal G where the credit was wrongly availed credit on the capital goods not installed in the appellants premises. Capital goods were located in the other premises and there was no intimation and no permission taken from the department for removal of capital goods to the other two units. M/s. Vikram Cements Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision relied by LAA is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the units were integrated and they were not registered. He relied on Eagle Flask Industries....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....#39;ble High Court in the case of HabasitIakoka Pvt. Ltd. (supra) on identical issue allowed cenvat credit on the capital goods installed in unregistered premises and used in the manufacture of the final product. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under:- "5. Learned counsel for the respondent brought to our notice, the decision of the Tribunal reported in 2006 (196) E.L.T. 18 = 2007 (8) S.T.R. 318 (Tribunal) Pooja Forge Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Faridabad, wherein the Tribunal, in the circumstances, has taken a similar view in tune with the views of the order of the Tribunal impugned in this appeal. 6. Going by the above finding of the Tribunal, we are also convinced that there was no violation of Rule 57....