9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration are that appellant company was availing Modvat credit on the duty paying documents received by them from two registered dealers. The allegations in the show cause notice are that the appellant company availed Modvat credit based only on the documents and did not receive any input as indicated in the said duty paying documents. Appellant company contested the show cause notice on the ground that the statement recorded of the proprietor of the registered dealer categorically mentions that the inputs/goods as mentioned in the invoice were supplied by them and they also challenged the show cause notice on the time bar issue. The adjudicating authority did not accept the contention of the appellant and confirmed the demand and also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have paid money to them for that, it is also on record that after consuming the scrap, they had manufactured finished goods and cleared the same on payment of duty. It is settled law that when the inputs are received and consumed in the factory premises, there cannot be any denial of Modvat/Cenvat credit to the appellant. In this case, it may be an arrangement between registered dealer and the said M/s. New Siddhi Vinayak Re-Rolling Mills, but that arrangement cannot cloud the transactions between appellant and registered dealer, in as much, that it is on record that the entire payment for the inputs purchased were made by the appellant to the registered dealer by cheque. It is also on record that the appellant is a person who does job work ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th of the invoices carrying duty payment particulars. Moreover the Revenue has confirmed the demand of duty against Prerna Metal Inds. in respect of goods removed by them by utilizing wrongly availed Modvat credit. We also observe that Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 at the time when the show cause notice was issued, provided for the recovery of Credit taken on account of error, omission or misconstruction on the part of officer or manufacturer or an assessee. As far as the appellants are concerned there was neither any error nor any misconstruction on their part. We also do not find any substance in the submission of the learned SDR that larger period of limitation will be invokable irrespective of the fact that fraud has not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
