2004 (11) TMI 472

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. Common issue is involved in both the appeal, therefore, they are being taken up together. 2.Heard both sides. The appellant filed these appeals against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. In both the cases the benefit of Modvat credit was denied to the appellant on the ground that they had not received the inputs in thei .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt paid the labour charges to the cutter. In the case of M/s. Suraj Udyog, the contention of the appellant is that the SCN was issued to the supplier of the inputs as well as to the appellant whereas the Commissioner of Central Excise in the impugned order dropped the proceedings against the supplier of the inputs on the ground that the inputs reached at the gate of appellant s factory. The conten .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ure of final product which were cleared on payment of duty. The allegation of the revenue is that they have not received the coils in the factory. In the case of M/s. Emkay Industries, the appellant named the cutter who is converting these coils into sheets. The appellant also produced the proof of payment to the cutter. In the case of Suraj Udyog, the adjudicating authority came to the conclusion .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X