2016 (11) TMI 825

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ondent Per Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order denying the cenvat credit on capital goods availed by the appellant during the period March, 2005 to September, 2005. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of textile goods and were availing the benefit of Notification No. 29/2004-CE and Notification No. 30/2004-CE wherea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellant. The matter was adjudicated, the demand of duty was confirmed along with interest and penalty was also imposed on the appellant. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits in their own case for different period reported in 2012 (284) ELT 240 (Tri. Del) the cenvat credit has allowed to the appellant, therefore, the impugned i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he submissions. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, I find that the appellant has availed cenvat credit on capital goods/parts, during the period March, 2005 to September, 2005 and not effected any clearance by availing benefit of notification 29/2004. In October, 2005 the capital goods has been used in manufacturing of goods cleared under notification 29/2004....