9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilty of suppression of facts. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 14.02.2011 while the impugned Bills of Entry are dated 17.09.2007, 19.06.2008 and 23.09.2008 and thus the impugned demand will also be hit by time bar presuming that the imposed credit was taken within a reasonable time of a few months from the dates of Bills of Entry (The date of taking impugned Cenvat credit is not mentioned in the Show Cause Notice or in the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/3432/2012-EX[SM] - FINAL ORDER NO. 53257/2014 - Dated:- 22-8-2014 - Mr. R.K. Singh, J. For the Appellant : Shri Jatin Mahajan, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Rakesh Puri, DR JUDGEMENT PER: R.K. Singh The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... availing the credit of duty, what is required to be established under Rule 57G is that the inputs received are in fact duty paid. The procedure set out in Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules is to ensure that the credit is taken on the basis of duty paid documents. The bill of entry is one such documents set out in Rule 57G. The said rule does not require that the bill of entry should be in the name of the person claiming credit of duty. It is not in dispute that the goods imported and cleared on payment of duty by one person can be used as inputs and credit of duty can be claimed by another person by establishing that the imported duty paid goods have been received as inputs and that the importer has not taken credit of that duty. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do not support the case of the revenue. In the case of Balmer Lawrie Co. (supra), the issue was not relating to endorsement on the bills of entry and, therefore, the said decision is distinguishable on facts. Similarly, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd. (supra) is also distinguishable on facts as the said decision is based on erroneous concession made by the Counsel for the appellant therein, that in the case of Balmer Lawrie Co. it is held that the Modvat credit is not available on the basis of endorsed copies of bills of entry. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal was in error in holding that the credit of duty taken by the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
