2006 (2) TMI 550

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cted against a common Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein he held that the respondent assessees were eligible for Modvat credit in regard to inputs received by them from manufacturers who were working under compounded levy scheme (Section 3A of the Central Excise Act). While passing the order, the Commissioner (Appeals) was following the order of the Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1944 , instead of that, the declarations are as :- Duty liability to be discharged under Rule 96ZP(3) or Goods cleared against compounded levy scheme or Duty liability discharged under Rule 96ZP(3) . 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is that there is no dispute that the suppliers were discharging duty liability under Section 3A, even though there was s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y of the manufacturer suppliers was not working under compounded levy scheme. It is also well settled that the buyers of the inputs did not have to lead evidence proving that correct duty was being paid by the manufacturer of the input under compounded levy scheme. Since the revenue is not disputing payment of duty under compounded levy scheme, there is no substance in these appeals. They fail and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X