2018 (5) TMI 306

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....br>Central Excise<br>S. V. GANGAPURWALA & A. M. DHAVALE, JJ. Mr. D. S. Ladda, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Prabhakar Shetty, Advocate h/f Mr. V. S. Bedre, Advocate for respondent ORDER : 1. The present appeal is filed on following questions of law. (a) Whether the CESTAT committed error in non-considering that the Respondents deliberately cleared goods under Rule 4(5) of CENVAT ru....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nufacture of final products by another unit? 2. Mr Ladda, learned counsel for the appellant submits that, in fact the case is covered under Rule 4(5)(A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The goods were removed after two years without any work being done on the said goods. The statements of the employees of the respondent were recorded, who categorically admitted that, no work of repair or recondition....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AT on the said ground. The learned advocate relies on the judgment of this Court upholding the judgment of CESTAT West Zonal Bench, Mumbai in case of Cummins India Ltd. v Commissioner of C. Ex. Pune-III reported in 2007 (219) E.L.T. 911 (Tri. Mumbai) and the judgment of the Delhi High Court in a case of Harsh International Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, BBSR-I reported in 20....