ORDER
P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. None for the respondents. No request has also been received on their behalf for adjournment. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned JDR.
In this appeal which has been preferred by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue to the denial of modvat credit to the respondents on the aerial rope of Rs. 73512/-. The adjudicating authority disallowed modvat credit on this item and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the respondents. The commissioner (Appeals) has reversed that order.
2. I have heard the learned JDR. The issue regarding the availability of modvat credit on the aerial rope to an assessee engaged in the manufacture of cement, already stands decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in J.K. Udaipur Udyog vs. CCE 2002 (53) RLT 784 and Jay Pee Rewa vs. CCE, 2002-TAXINDIAONLINE-97-SC-CX. The Commissioner (Appeals) has followed the ratio of law in these cases and allowed modvat credit to the respondents. Therefore, I do not find any illegality committed by he Commissioner (Appeals) while passing the impugned order. No law contrary has been referred by the Department. Consequently, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
(DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order correctly but the access and circulation is subject to the condition that Taxindiaonline is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.)