2018 (10) TMI 1535

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t Mrs. Kavitha Podwal, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 22.2.2018 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture and clearance of the excisable goods viz., Excavator H....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on Customs Education Cess and Customs Secondary & Higher Education Cess on inputs like raw material and capital goods which is ineligible as per Rule 3(1)(vi) and (via) of CENVAT credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.13/2012 Customs and No.14/2012 Customs, both dated 17.3.2012. The total credit availed by the appellant on Customs Education Cess and Customs Secondary & Higher Education Cess ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rused the records. 3. Heard Shri Rajesh. R, Company Representative on behalf of the appellant-company and Mrs. Kavitha Podwal, AR for the Revenue. 4. Learned Company Representative for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the facts and the law. He further submitted that the appellant had inadvertently availed CENVAT credit on Custom....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Company of India Ltd. vs. CCE: 2010 (256) ELT 595 (Tri.-Kol.) (v) CCE vs. KPTCL: 2010 (250) ELT 572 (Tri.-Bang.) (vi) Punj Lloyd Ltd. vs. CCE: 2015 (40) STR 1028 (Tri.-Del.) 5. On the other hand, the learned AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 6. After considering the submission of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appell....