9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4-2011 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, J. Shri P.G. Mehta, Advocate for assessee. Shri I. Ahmed, SDR for Revenue. Per: Mrs. Archana Wadhwa: As per facts on record, the appellants was receiving inputs from their parent unit for job work. After processing the goods, they cleared the processed goods from their factory to their parent unit by following the provisions of job work, as envi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , wherein he has (i) disallowed the CENVAT Credit of Rs.1,11,263/- (Rupees One Lakh, Eleven Thousands, Two Sixty Three only), (ii) imposed penalty of Rs.1,11,263/- (Rupees One Lakh, Eleven Thousands, Two Sixty Three only) in terms of the provisions of Rule 15(1), and (iii) ordered recovery of interest of Rs.4,434/- (Rupees Four Thousands, Four Hundreds, Thirty Four Only) in terms of provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... doubt, the case of Sanshu Industries is similar to the appellants on the fact that in that case the manufacturer had cleared the dutiable goods atleast once which is also the case before me. However, this would be in contradiction to another case law cited by the appellant. She refers to Larger Bench decision in the case of Sterlite Industries Vs. CCE Pune and after referring the said judgment as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bserved that the issue is covered by Larger Bench decision, it was not open to her to refer and rely upon some other judgments passed by the Division Benches not covering the issue directly. Such act on behalf of the Commissioner(Appeals) unnecessarily would put the litigant in a disadvantageous position and enhances the litigation. 8. The entire purpose of placing the disputed issue before La ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
