9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are removed; as such, from the factory, the manufacturer shall pay an amount equal to the credit availed in respect of such inputs - The Tribunal in the case of CCE, New Delhi vs. Topaze Overseas (P) Ltd. [1998 (8) TMI 384 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] has observed that the assessee’s registration as manufacturer of same items and not as a dealer is sufficient for the purpose of Notification No. 32/94-CE(NT). Similarly in the case of R S Julliram Shamlal vs. CCE Calcutta [2002 (1) TMI 1070 - CEGAT, KOLKATA], it was held that when supplier of inputs is already registered as a manufacturer separate registration as a dealer is not a ground for denying the Cenvat credit - Credit availed by the assessee stand reversed by them at the time of clearance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts immediately reversed the said credit. 2. Further it is seen that the appellant imported sodium antimonite in the month of March, 2002 and availed the credit of duty paid thereon in the month of April, 2007. The said sodium antimonite was sold by the appellant as such in October and November, 2007, by reversing the entire credit so availed by them. Revenue entertained a view that inasmuch as the assessee had traded in the said sodium antimonite and inasmuch as they were not registered as dealer, they were not entitled to avail Cenvat credit. 3. On the above basis, proceedings were initiated by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 23.2.07 proposing denial of Cenvat credit of Rs.2,47,397/- availed in respect of sodium antimonite a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s paid the entire amount of credit so availed by them. The Revenue s objection that appellant was not registered as dealer and as such, could not have availed the credit cannot be appreciated for confirmation of demand of credit for the second time. The Tribunal in the case of CCE, New Delhi vs. Topaze Overseas (P) Ltd. [2000 (118) ELT 174 (Tri)] has observed that the assessee s registration as manufacturer of same items and not as a dealer is sufficient for the purpose of Notification No. 32/94-CE(NT). Similarly in the case of R S Julliram Shamlal vs. CCE Calcutta [ 2002 (147) ELT 164 (Tri-Kol)], it was held that when supplier of inputs is already registered as a manufacturer separate registration as a dealer is not a ground for denying th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
