TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (9) TMI 170
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....:- (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in placing reliance upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Kailash Auto Builders, reported in 2001 (47) RLT 950 CEGAT Bangalore as well as the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Arvind Mills Ltd., reported in 2005 (182) E.L.T. 362 (Tri-Mumbai) despite the fact that in view of its own judgment rendered in the case of M/s. Surya Roshni Ltd., reported in 2003 (155) E.L.T. 481 (Tri.-Delhi) as affirmed by the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2003 (158) E.L.T. A273 (S.C.) it was clearly held that credit of capital goods initially used exclusively in manufacture of exempted goods cannot be allowed in view of the provisions of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said Order in Original dated 6-12-2001, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority having applied the ratio of the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Kailash Auto Builders Limited v. Commissioner, Bangalore, reported in 2002 (140) E.L.T. 148 (Tri.-Bang.) allowed the appeal of the respondent assessee and set aside the Order in Original. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the revenue preferred appeal before the CESTAT and while disposing of the said appeal, the Tribunal held that the short issue involved in the case was as to whether the respondent assessee was entitled to avail modval credit of duty in respect of capital goods which were initially used in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the decision in the case of M/s. Surya Roshni Limited, reported in 2003 (155) E.L.T. 481 (Tri.-Del), which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in the case reported in 2003 (158) E.L.T. A273 (S.C.), inter alia, holding that the credit of capital goods which was initially exclusively used for manufacture of exempted goods could not be allowed. 7. Mr. Ravani has further submitted that the Tribunal has passed a cryptic order and had not considered the legal position. As per the provision of Rule 57AD(3) of the Rules and also under Rule 6(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001, no credit of specified duty is allowed on capital goods which are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....site quantity and had to clear them under exemption and that the usage of the machine is to be seen with regard to its working life and not utilization in a limited specific period. The respondent assessee has, therefore, debited the credit taken and subsequently, again took credit of duty paid on the machine. The learned Commissioner was, therefore, of the view that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of M/s. Kailash Auto Builders (supra). While confirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal has also followed the decision of M/s. Kailash Auto Builders. Over and above this, the Tribunal has also referred to the decision of Arvind Mills Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, 2005 (182) E.L.T. 36....