9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... granted. - Appeal Nos.59117, 59249, 59251, 59509, 59752-59753 of 2013 - Stay Order No. 59676 59681/2013 - Dated:- 4-11-2013 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Mr. Sahab Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Pramod Kumar, A.R. (Jt. CDR) ORDER Per Archana Wadhwa: All the stay petitions are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by Commissioner vide which he has denied the cenvat credit of Rs.36,43,74,948/- to M/s Balkrishna Industries Ltd. along with imposition of penalty of Rs.23 crores (approx.). In addition, penalties stand imposed on the other appellants who are suppliers of raw materials. 2. After hearing both sides, we fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... There is no dispute that appellants had taken invalidation letter/ARO.These documents were handed over to the suppliers who in turn would have taken the benefit available to them. These have not been cancelled/withdrawn by the appellants. However, it is also observed from the impugned order itself that the suppliers have not availed the refund of terminal excise duty. We also find from the documents submitted along with the appeal papers that the suppliers have in the relevant years paid very substantial duty from PLA and therefore the Revenue s contention regarding shifting of credit does not hold water. We have asked the ld. A.R. to show any specific provisions under Central Excise law regarding the appellants to clear the goods in the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... During the personal hearing on 17th May, 2013, the advocate Shri Prakash Shah who appeared on behalf of the main noticee also relied on the order dated 5.4.2013 of the Mumbai Bench of the Hon ble CESTAT in the case of Oleofine Organics (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Thane. These orders have also been relied upon by some co-noticees . I have gone through this order and there is no doubt that the issue before the Hon ble Tribunal was same as here. The thrust of the Hon ble Tribunal was that there is nothing in Notification No.44/2001 which requires the manufacturer to clear the goods without payment of duty only. It was also observed that there is revenue neutrality and no loss to the revenue. It is evident that the policy Circular No.16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
