9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court in the case of CCE & CUS vs. MDS Switchgear Ltd. (2008 (8) TMI 37 - SUPREME COURT), while considering availability of Cenvat credit to a manufacturer in respect of some inputs procured by him from another manufacturer, the quantum of duty already determined by the jurisdictional officers of the supplier unit cannot be contested or challenged by the officials incharge of the recipient unit. In this case, there is no evidence produced that the assessment of duty at the end of the domestic suppliers had been reviewed and the duty paid by them has been refunded to them. When this is so, there is no question of denying the Cenvat credit to the appellant. In view of this, the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. - Decid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e domestic manufacturers, however, while supplying the inputs to the appellant, supplied the same on payment of duty instead of supplying the same without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 44/2001 CE (NT) dated 26/06/2001. The appellant accordingly took Cenvat credit of the duty paid by the domestic suppliers of inputs. The Department is of the view that since the domestic suppliers of the appellant were required to supply the inputs free of duty against invalidated Advance Authorization under Notification No. 44/2001-CE (NT), but still they cleared those inputs on payment of Central Excise duty, the amount paid by the domestic suppliers as duties cannot be treated as duty for the purpose of Cenvat credit and accordingly the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avail Cenvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs procured indigenously against invalidated Advance Authorization, that same view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Shakun Polymers Ltd. vs. CCE CUS, Daman reported in 2009 (241) E.L.T. 250 (Tri. - Ahmd.), that in any case, it is settled law that for the purpose of Cenvat credit in respect of some inputs, the quantum of duty already determined by the Jurisdictional officers of the suppliers unit cannot be contested or challenged by the officers incharge of the recipient unit and in this regard reliance is placed on the Apex court judgment in the case of CCE CUS vs. MDS Switchgear Ltd. reported in 2008 (229) E.L.T. 485 (S.C.) and that in view of the above submissions, the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a), while considering availability of Cenvat credit to a manufacturer in respect of some inputs procured by him from another manufacturer, the quantum of duty already determined by the jurisdictional officers of the supplier unit cannot be contested or challenged by the officials incharge of the recipient unit. In this case, there is no evidence produced that the assessment of duty at the end of the domestic suppliers had been reviewed and the duty paid by them has been refunded to them. When this is so, there is no question of denying the Cenvat credit to the appellant. In view of this, the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal as well as stay application are allowed. (Operative part of the order pronounce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
