2012 (10) TMI 948

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ence, in case of default in payment of duty shown in the respective input invoice, the recovery be made from the input supplier and credit cannot be denied to the respondent for the said reason. In these circumstances, I agree with the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), which is upheld - Decided against Revenue.
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. Shri A.K. Biswas, Superintendent (AR), for the Appellant. Shri K.P. Dey, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-appeal No. 28/Pat/C.Ex./Appeal/2010, dated 16-3-2010. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of road roller falling under Chapter Sub-heading No. 8429 40 20 of CETA, 1985. For .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re discharged by M/s. Recon Casting Pvt. Ltd., Hence, the Cenvat credit shown in the invoices were not admissible to the respondent. However, he has fairly conceded that the Excise duty was later paid by M/s. Recon Casting Pvt. Ltd. 4. Ld. Advocate appearing for the respondent has submitted that they have been purchasing the goods regularly from the inputs supplier M/s. Recon Casting Pvt. Ltd. Hence, there was no possibility of raising any doubt about the payment of duty shown in the respective invoices issued by the inputs supplier M/s. Recon Casting Pvt. Ltd. He has submitted that it is the responsibility of the inputs supplier to discharge the duty and the event the input supplier defaulted in making the payment of duty, the same should .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... without payment of duty. The input goods were accompanied by invoices showing duty payment particulars. Here, the mischief is committed by M/s. Recon Industries and for this the Appellant should not be made to suffer. M/s. Wilson Engineering has discharged their duty liability on receipt of the goods and are therefore entitled to avail Cenvat credit on the goods as they have rightly done so. Here it is not a case of fake invoices or a case where Cenvat credit is taken without receiving the goods. Here the department is not disputing the receipt of the goods under the cover of invoices by the appellant. Hence, Cenvat credit cannot be denied to them. The appellant case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the above .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X