9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orker has paid excess amount of duty than the duty liable to be paid by them - Held that:- It is not in dispute that the supplier in the instant case is falling under the jurisdiction of another Commissioner. As supplier was not issued any show-cause notice by the jurisdictional Revenue authorities asking to show cause as to why the valuation of final productions should not be redetermined. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellant herein were having a factory at Jalgaon and were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and availed Cenvat credit on the inputs used in relation to the manufacture of the final products. The appellant used to send the scrap for converting them to copper strips and brass strips to job-worker, namely, Indian Smelt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and and imposed penalty and also levied interest. Aggrieved by such an order the appellant are before us. 3. Learned counsel could draw our attention to the facts of the case. He would also draw support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Customs vs. MDS Switchgear Ltd. 2008 (229) ELT 485 (SC) which have settled the law on the subject t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ispute that the supplier in the instant case is falling under the jurisdiction of another Commissioner. It is also not in dispute that the said supplier was not issued any show-cause notice by the jurisdictional Revenue authorities asking to show cause as to why the valuation of final productions should not be redetermined. It is also not in dispute that the appellant herein paid the supplier of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
