GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard . This appeal has been heard in pursuance of order passed today in Stay application No. 2701 of 2009.

(2.) The appellants challenge the order dated 19.06.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur whereby he has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants. The said appeal was filed against the order dated 30.06.2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur who had confirmed the demand of Rs. 11, 07,117/ - against the appellants and had ordered the recovery thereof under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 alongwith interest and had also imposed equal amount of penalty. Since the appeal against the same before the Commissioner (Appeals) did not yield fruitful result, the appellants have approached this Tribunal by this appeal.

(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants while relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of Cummins India Limited v. CCE Pune -III reported in, 2007 (219) ELT 911 upheld by the Bombay High Court reported in, 2009 (234) ELT 120, as also in the matter of Commissioner of C.Ex. Chandigarh v. Raghav Alloys (P) Ltd. reported in, 2009 (242) ELT 124, CCE Kanpur v. Geeta Indus. (P) Ltd. reported in, 2009 (95) RLT 622 (CESTAT -Del.), CCE Coimbatore v. L.G. Balakrishnan & Bros. reported in, 2009 (238) ELT 659 submitted that the expression 'as such' in Rule 3(5) has to be harmoniously construed as is understood in Cummins India Limited case duly upheld by the Bombay High Court and considering the same the impugned order cannot be sustained and therefore be set aside.