9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch as military, railways, and airports etc. were registered with the Central Excise department at Plot No.25, Sector 4, Faridabad. In February, 2006, the appellants got registered in their own name at another address at Plot No.49, Sector 6, Faridabad showing their head office at Plot No.25, Sector 4, Faridabad. In the month of June to 2006 to July, 2006, the appellants procured inputs against duty paid invoices on which the address of their head office was mentioned and the said goods have been received in their factory at new address of their factory through endorsement of head office to the factory address. On verification by the Range Superintendent of Central Excise, it was alleged the same is not permissible under Rule 9 of the Cenvat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ta-IV 2001 (138) ELT 216 (Tri.-Kolkata) (9) CCE, Trichy vs.Sree Uma Pasrameswari Mills Ltd. -2001 (136) ELT 910 (Tri.-Chennai) (10) CCE, Vapi vs. ITW India Ltd. -2010 (17) STR 587 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (11) Merloni Termo Sanitari India Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-I -2009 (233) ELT 222 (Tri.-Mumbai) (12) Gautam Weaving Mills vs. CCE, Belapur 2008 (230) ELT 147 (Tri.-Mumbai) 4. On the other hand, learned SDR submitted that under new rule no endorsement is allowed and this fact has been suppressed by the appellants from the department, it came in the knowledge of the department when the Range Superintendent asked for verification of the invoices. He submitted that the endorsed invoiace is not proper document for availment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sting & Development Lab is also not relevant to the facts of the present case as in that case, the demands were raised against the refund made by the adjudicating authority which was availed by the party on the basis of endorsed invoices. But no where it is coming out what endorsement is made. Moreover in that order, it is mentioned that Revenue s appeal against setting aside the demands were allowed by the Tribunal but the said order is not produced by the DR. Hence, this case is not relevant to the facts of the present case. I find that the case law relied upon by the learned Advocate are some how are relevant to the facts of the present case where in a series of decisions, this Tribunal has held that invoices addressed to the head office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
