2012 (11) TMI 26

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sioner, for the Respondent. [Order per : Shri D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. - Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that before and after stock transfer permission was granted, the applicant was maintaining separate set of books for identification of the goods came from a different unit of the appellant to its Bolpur unit. So also quantitative detail relating to receipt and dispatch of those goods w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mits that when goods received from outside were input and that did not undergo manufacturing process, there should be denial of Cenvat credit. Permission was obtained in October, 2007 in terms of page 56 of the appeal folder while controversy related to the period December, 2006 to April, 2007. Therefore, the permission so granted not being retrospective shall not help the applicant. Accordingly, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ns of both sides. 5. Prima-facie, Rule 16(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, does not create any embargo to avail Cenvat credit in respect of finished goods consigned from a different unit to Bolpur Unit by fiction of law treating such finished goods as input. The finished goods were treated under law as input which need not undergo processing since accountability was only safe-guard measure .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X