9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1035X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m. As such the appellant cannot be attributed with any suppression or misstatement of facts especially when the entry against Sl. No. 36 of Notification No. 20/2006 is not covering the goods by clear description. Further, the Customs authorities also accepted SAD paid by the appellant at the time of import of the goods and never questioned the same. In such a scenario, the subsequent issuance of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., dated 1-3-2006 and the appellant should not have paid SAD on the same. As such as a consequence, they were not entitled to the credit of SAD paid by them at the time of import of the goods in November, 2006. 3. On the above belief, a show cause notice dated 7-11-2008 was issued to the appellant seeking denial of the Cenvat credit. However, the said show cause notice did not refer to the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to whether raw wool would cover the scoured wool or not. As such they decided to pay SAD and the customs authorities also accepted the same and passed the bill of entry. Such assessment done by the Customs was never disputed by the Revenue or put to challenge at any point of time, thereafter. 5. The appellant has availed the credit in their statutory records maintained by them in the ordinary c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) = 2012 (27) S.T.R. 94 (P H) is appropriate. It stands held in the said decision that duty paid on inputs in excess of due amount is admissible as Cenvat credit as the deptt. cannot get the duty twice. Admittedly in the present case, the appellant had paid the SAD and has got the credit of the same. Such SAD paid by the appellant is being retained by the Revenue. Denial of the credit would amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
