9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Notification No. 44/2001-CE(NT) dt 26.6.2001. We also note that overall there is no loss to the Revenue as the credit is being taken of the duty paid. - the issue is exactly the same as directed by the Tribunal in the case of Shakun Polymers Ltd. Vs. CCE [2009 (3) TMI 693 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] - Decided in favor of Assessee. - E/73 & 767/2012-Mum - A/300 & 301/13/EB/C-II - Dated:- 10-4-2013 - Ashok Jindal And P K Jain, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Gajendra Jain, Adv. For the Respondents : Shri K I Goyal, Commissioner and Shri Navneet Additional Commissioner (A.R.) Per: P K Jain: The facts and issue involved in both the appeals are similar and hence being taken up by a common order. The facts of the case are the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have taken the Cenvat Credit of the duty paid by the suppliers. Impugned order demands the Cenvat Credit so taken alongwith interest and penalty. 2. The main contention of the Ld. Consultant to the appellants is that the appellants did not want or was not in a position to follow the procedure prescribed under Notification NO. 44/2001-CE (NT) dated 26.6.2001 and, therefore, suppliers have not availed the benefit of duty free clearance. It was further contended that appellants cannot be compelled to follow the procedure and once they have not followed the procedure, they are not entitled to the benefit of NotificaitonNo.44//2001-CE(NT) dt 26.6.2001. The duty has been paid by the suppliers of the raw material/input and they have availed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4/2001-CE(NT) dt. 26.6.2001. Ld. AR further argued that appellants cannot follow the invalidation letter/ARO procedure partly (i.e. for Foreign Trade Policy purpose) and not follow the same for excise purpose. In view of this position no duty was payable by the supplier and thy ewer not entitled to avail the Cenvat Credit. Ld. A.R further stated that supplies made by the suppliers are eligible for deemed credit benefit which involved refund of terminal excise duty. Further, suppliers have paid excise duty in order to shift the accumulated Cenvat Credit to the appellants. 5. We have considered the submission of the both the sides. There is no dispute that appellants had taken invalidation letter/ARO. These documents were handed over to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
