9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... See Sheela Dyeing & Printing Mills P. Ltd. vs. C.C.E. & E, Surat-1 [2008 (7) TMI 209 - HIGH COURT GUJARAT] As in the present case the petitioners have admittedly not taken the steps enumerated in the Explanation to Rule 7(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules thus the Revenue Authority rightly denied rebate of duty - against assessee. - Special Civil Application No. 98 & 101 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 11-10-2012 - Bhaskar Bhattacharya And J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. Appellant Rep. by : Mr Paresh M Dave Respondent Rep. by : Mr P.S. Champaneri with Mr R.J. Oza JUDGEMENT Per : Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ : These two Special Civil Applications were heard along with a batch of Tax Appeals [being Tax Appeal No. 1153 of 2011 and analogous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d all such processed fabrics to the foreign countries under claim of rebate of duties paid thereon. 3.4 Separate adjudication orders were passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise rejecting all the rebate claims on the ground that the weavers from whom unprocessed fabrics were procured were fake and non-existent as declared by Alert Circulars issued by the Surat Central Excise Commissioner and therefore, the credit of excise duties shown to have been paid on invoices of such weavers were not admissible and accordingly, the payment of excise duties on the processed and finished goods out of such CENVAT credit was not actual payment of duties for allowing rebate thereof. 4. Being dissatisfied, the petitioners preferred an app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been complied with simply because the original manufacturers of fabrics were found to be non-existent. Further question that arose for determination in those appeals was, whether the appellants had taken reasonable steps within the meaning of the Explanation to Rule 7(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. 9. By CAV judgment dated September 28, 2012 in Tax Appeals No. 1153 of 2011 and analogous matters, this Court, on consideration of the entire materials on record, came to the conclusion that simply because the original manufacturer is now not traceable, is not sufficient for reversal of CENVAT credit already taken by the appellants therein by virtue of original invoices. However, at the same time, this Bench accepted the contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
