2017 (8) TMI 148

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Suchitra Sharma, DR for the respondent ORDER Per: (Dr.) Satish Chandra The present appeal is filed by the appellant against the order in original no. 002 dated 10.01.2014. The period of dispute is April 2008 to December 2011. 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the period under consideration the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of lead and zinc concentrates, zinc ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as claimed Cenvat Credit by following the ratio laid down in the case of Sanghi Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE Rajkot, 2006 (206) ELT 575 (Tri-Del.). The Ld. Counsel also relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Prism Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE Bhopal in appeal no.E/4056/2012-EX(DB) dated 24.03.2017 where the Cenvat Credit on the transmission line was allowed. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Departm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was used for only cellular services being the service provider which is not the case in the instant case. Thus the ratio laid down in the case of Bharti Airtel is distinguishable and is not applicable to the instant case where the appellant is not a service provider. In the present case, the appellant is a manufacturer and needs the electricity by way of transmission line. By following the ratio l....