9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant : Shri Rakesh Goyal, Additional Commissioner (A.R.) JUDGEMENT Per: Ashok Jindal: Revenue is in appeal against the impugned orders holding that both the authorities below have gone beyond the allegations alleged in the show cause notice. Therefore, the impugned orders are required to be set aside. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are having two units (a) M/s. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation declarations and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 dt. 16.3.95 for clearances between two units and cleared the goods without payment of duty. Thereafter, show cause notice came to be issued on 30.11.2000 to deny the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 dt 16.3.95 for the period November 1999, on the premise that the respondent has availed the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 dt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f duty is entitled as the Cenvat Credit to the other unit. The said order was challenged by the Revenue before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), on the premise that the adjudicating authority has no power to hold that on payment of duty by one unit to the other unit the latter is entitled to take Cenvat Credit as it is not alleged in the show cause notice. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) concurred wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd passed the order holding that they are entitled to take Cenvat Credit of duty paid by the another unit. The same view has been affirmed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity with the impugned orders. As in this case, it is the defence of the respondents that if the benefit of notification is denied to them and it is held that the respondents are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
