9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondents are manufacturers of cotton and polyester yarns. During the period 10-8-2001 to 25-1-2002, they dispatched consignments of cotton yarn in cross reel hanks for mercerization to M/s. Super Kamalam Processing Dyeing Ltd. (SKPDL for short). These clearances were on payment of duty as evidenced by the relevant invoices issued by the respondents. M/s. SKPDL (job workers) mercerized the yarns a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . After examining the records and hearing both sides, I find that the short issue is whether a manufacturer of final product could, during the aforesaid period, take Cenvat credit of the duty paid on his input, on the basis of his own invoice whereunder duty was paid by himself on the input. In other words, the question is whether, for a manufacturer of final product who cleared inputs on payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at credit on the goods on the basis of the invoice issued by the former, which means the invoice issued by the respondents in such a situation would have been valid duty-paying document for Cenvat purpose. The department cannot have double standards. Hence in the facts of the this case, the invoice issued by the respondents evidencing payment of duty on the input were Cenvatable documents and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
