9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 946X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing Modvat/Cenvat credit - following decision of SARVESH REFRACTORIES (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUSTOMS [2007 (11) TMI 23 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided against Revenue. - E/55/2011 - A-782/KOL/2012 - Dated:- 23-10-2012 - Dr. D.M. Misra, J. Shri A.K. Biswas, Superintendent (AR), for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. ORDER The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. 59/Kol-III/2010, dated 30-11-2010. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of CTV, Refrigerator, Washing Machine etc. falling under Chapter Heading 84 and 85 of the First schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondent were issued a demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decided on the basis of their written submission and they were not interested in attending hearing. In the said cross objection, they have submitted that the Cenvat credit was availed by them on the basis of duty paid documents and there was no deviation from Rules 2 and 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Also there is no evidence that the input supplier, M/s. Supreme Industries Ltd. have ever claimed any refund of duty paid by them on the input supplied by them. He has submitted that if any valuation dispute arises with regard to the input supplied to them by M/s. Supreme Industries Ltd., it is the concern of the jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities of the said unit to initiate action against them and not on the recipient of inputs namel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Aggarwal Iron Industries and M/s. Anand Arc Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (supra). I find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeal) has recorded as follows : After going through the records I find that the appellants took credit on the basis of the invoice issued by the supplier. There is no record or evidence that the duty paid by the supplier has been varied so that the effect could be imposed on the recipient of inputs while taking the credit. Hence the case laws cited are applicable to the defence of the appellants. For the sake of arguments, if the used packing boxes were sold to a different person and not to SIL, there would not have been any question. Also, if SIL would have purchased use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
