2019 (5) TMI 1788

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AL) Shri R.S. Yadav, Advocate for Appellant Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi, Authorized Representative for Respondent ORDER ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR After hearing both the sides duly represented by learned advocate Shri R.S. Yadav appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned AR Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi appearing on behalf of the Revenue, we note that the appellants were manufacture....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....w cause notice dated 23 September, 2008 wherein there was a proposal to recover cenvat credit of around Rs. 1.35 crore availed on the bare films which were further used in the manufacture of laminated rolls under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Further, there was another proposal to recover amount of Rs. 1.25 crore being a specific percentage of the value of laminated films cleared under the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eared the same along with other manufactured goods. It is clear that the cenvat credit availed by the appellant was debited for payment of central excise duty on laminated rolls. We have also gone through the Final Order in the case of Asian Colour Coated Ispat Ltd. V/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III reported at 2015 (317) E.L.T. 538 (Tribunal-Delhi) wherein by majority it was held that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....said rule provides for recovery of amount in respect of such goods which are cleared without payment of duty. It is undisputed fact that laminated rolls were cleared on payment of duty therefore the impugned order is not sustainable in respect of the said amount of around Rs. 1.25 crore. This view is also supported by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. V....