9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sferee/appellant - Held that:- Board’s Circular above has no embargo to prohibit transfer nor it says that endorsement is mandatory. It has no doubt prescribed procedure to safeguard interest of revenue so as to ensure that double claim of Cenvat credit is not made on same goods. There exists no evidence on record to show that the goods which came through the bills of entry transferred to the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nished goods making value addition - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/977/2005, E/1193, 3524/2005, 1636/2006, 2589/2007 and E/M/867, 865, 866 & 864/2010 - Final Order Nos. 56584-56588/2013-EX(PB) - Dated:- 21-5-2013 - Shri D.N. Panda, Member (J) and Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) Shri S. Sunil, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. Ranjana Jha, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. ORDER Submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not entitled to Cenvat credit. 3. It is the submission on behalf of Revenue that there is Board s Circular No. 179/13/96-CX., dated 29-2-1996 in respect of endorsement. Once procedure prescribed therein is not followed, then Cenvat credit is not permissible. Revenue also relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Xerox Modicorp Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2005 (192) E.L.T. 878 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce such situation is absent the Cenvat credit claimed by the appellant is undeniable. 5. The citations made by Revenue relates to the case of denial of Cenvat credit against endorsed bills of entry. Tribunal held against Revenue. In the case of the present appellant there was no endorsement at all. So also there was no evidence at all on record to show that goods have gone elsewhere for double c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
