2007 (2) TMI 528

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ow cause notice dated 31-3-2003 was issued alleging that the appellants availed Cenvat credit on the capital goods on the basis of invoice no. 206 dated 9-3-2002 which was not showing the name of the appellant as consignee. 2. It was contended by the appellants that the goods were purchased by them and were delivered at the site of the job workers for brazing etc. which were received back in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Rules, 2002 and, therefore, cenvat credit was allowed to them. He also submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) erroneously proceeded on the basis of rule 3(l)(vi) and he submits that they have complied with the procedure under rule 4(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules and, therefore, the credit cannot be denied. 4. The learned D.R. submits that there is no provision under the Cenvat Scheme to delive .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that rule 4(5) of the said Rules provides that credit can be allowed even if the capital goods are sent as such or after partially processing, to a job worker for the processes specified therein. It has further been held that the words sent used in the Rule clearly indicates that the goods are required to be first received in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X