2018 (5) TMI 1447

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espondent ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 17.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the appellant. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Automation System falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. They have filed a r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2.  Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3.  Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the binding judicial precedent, He further submitted that the impugned order has not considered the material fact that the appellant has closed the factory in June 2012 and hence could not utilize the credit ly....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0. In addition to the above said decision, the appellant has also relied upon the following decisions in support of his submission: a. Bangalore Cables P. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore - 2017 (347) E.L.T. 100 (Tri. -Bang.) b. CCE, Nasik Vs. Jain Vanguard Polybutlene Ltd. - 2010 (256) E.L.T.  523 (Bom.) c.  Commissioner Vs, Jain Vanguard Polybutlene Ltd. - 2015 (326) E.L.T. A86 (SC) d.&nbs....