9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years paid very substantial duty from PLA and, therefore, the Revenue’s contention regarding shifting of credit does not hold water. Notification No.44/2001-CE (NT), dt.26.06.2001 is an optional procedure for getting duty free inputs. This notification is subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. If the appellant has not fulfilled these conditions, then the raw material has to be received on payment of duty. Once duty is paid on the inputs CENVAT Credit is admissible if not in contravention of CENVAT Credit Rules. Further it has been held that by the relied upon case-laws that duty assessed at the suppliers end cannot be questioned at the recipient s end. Accordingly, appeal filed by the appellant is required to be allowed by setti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent appeal has been filed. Ld.Advocate relied upon the following case-laws to drive home the point that this issue is no more res integra and has been decided in favour of the assessee. i) Shakun Polymers Ltd Vs CCE Cus Daman [2009 (241) ELT 250 (Tri-Ahmd)] ii) Oleofine Organics (India) Pvt.Ltd. Vs CCE Thane-I [2014 (299) ELT 91 (Tri-Mum)] iii) Unreported judgment of Gujarat High Court s Order dt.24.04.2014 in Tax Appeal No.1155 of 2013 in the case of CCE Ahmedabad-III Vs Nahar Granites Ltd. 3. Shri J. Nair (AR) defended the orders passed by the lower authorities and argued that credit cannot be availed once Advance Licence invalidation is claimed by the appellant. 4. Heard both sides and perused t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation under Notification No. 44/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 only. We have also seen the Notification and the connected rules. These rules do not require the appellants to necessarily clear the goods duty free by following the procedure under Notification No. 44/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001. We also note that overall there is no loss to the Revenue as the credit is being taken of the duty paid. If the appellants could have followed the Notification No. 44/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001, no duty would have been paid by the suppliers and appellants would also have not got any credit. We also note that in the impugned order, Tribunal judgment in the case of M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. reported in 2009 (244) E.L.T. 254 (Tri.-Ahd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
