9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14-4-2009 - Shri P.K. Das, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri S. Gautam, DR, for the Appellant. S/Shri Vikrant Kakaria Gagan Kohli, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order]. These appeals are arising out of a common order and, therefore, all are being taken up together for disposal. 2. Appeal filed against M/s. Rajinder Pal Vinod Kumar, M/s. Chandigarh Steel Corporation and M/s. Rachna Steel Corporation are registered dealers. Appeal filed against M/s. Triveni Castings Pvt. Ltd. and Jyoti Concast Steel Ltd. are manufacturers of final product who had availed Cenvat Credit on the basis of documents issued by the registered dealers. 3. Shri Vikram Kakaria, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of Chandigarh Steel Corporation and M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondents herein filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). By the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 24-10-2006 Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty imposed on the respondents. Hence, the Revenue filed these appeals against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Learned D.R. on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeals. He submits that the respondents issued invoices and no scrap was supplied with the central excise invoice. He also submits that the original authority disallowed the credit availed by the manufacturer of input i.e. M/s. Eastern Steel Agro Industries as well as imposed penalty for wrong availment of credit by the dealers and manufacturers of final product. He further submits that the registered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals) rightly set aside the penalties. 7. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the manufacturers of final product availed credit on the basis of invoices issued by the registered dealers who in turn issued the invoice on the basis of invoices issued by the manufacturer of input. In the present adjudication order, the original authority disallowed the credit utilized by the manufacturer of inputs. No material is available to show that invoices issued by the manufacturer of inputs are invalid. The original authority observed that the manufacturer of input might have received the scrap along with invoices but not the scrap which was generated in their factory premises. Thus, the allegation against the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edings has been taken against the registered dealers from whom the respondents had produced the material under the duty paid invoices for valuable consideration by making a payment through cheques. Having paid the duty on the purchased material, the respondents are entitled to avail the credit on the strength of the documents issued by the registered dealers. Similar view has been earlier expressed by the Tribunal in an identical case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Malerkotla Steels Alloys (P) Ltd., 2003 (156) E.L.T. 932. 3. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same is upheld. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 8. In the present case I do not find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
