9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of any goods, could not have taken Cenvat Credit - Refund claim of respondent accepted - against Revenue. - E/43 OF 2011 - A/1011/WZB/AHD OF 2012 - Dated:- 29-6-2012 - B.S.V. MURTHY, J. S.K. Mall for the Appellant. Joseph Kurian for the Respondent. ORDER 1. The respondent has supplied 1125 nos. of tyres against the purchase order issued by the Commandant, Central Ordnanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... more than what was agreed to was accepted and the first appellate authority held that respondent is eligible for refund. The revenue is in appeal against the decision. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned A.R. on behalf of Revenue submitted that merely because a Credit Note is issued and excise duty was paid, the refund claim cannot be accepted. What is relevant is the price shown in the Invoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on an appeal filed before them. Therefore, he submits that in view of the law settled by the Supreme Court, on the ground that the appellant have issued a credit note, the refund claim could not have been allowed. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent while agreeing with submission of the learned A.R. submits that in this case the refund claim has been allowed by the first appellate authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise duty to any other person does not arise and ordnance depot not being a manufacturer of any goods, could not have taken Cenvat Credit also and further the Commandant also certified that they have not taken Cenvat Credit nor they have paid excise duty to the appellant for differential value shown in the invoice. Thus the impugned order is in line with the statutory provisions and as per law. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
