9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o made a categorical observation that the Appellant failed to establish that the inputs received at their Unit-2 and had been utilized in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. - Reason to interfere with the aforesaid finding of the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals). Further, I am of the opinion that the decision cited by the learned representative for the Appellant is not applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as in that case the inputs which were cleared as inter-mediate product, received back in the factory and utilized in the manufacture of final product. - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No. Ex. Ap. 627/11 - Order No. FO/A/75015/2015 - Dated:- 14-1-2015 - Dr. D. M. Misra,JJ. For the Petitioner : Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected the Appeal filed by the assessee Appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Appeal. 3. The learned authorized representative Shri Tapan Hazra, Commercial Manager for the Appellant submitted that even though these units were situated at a distance having separate Central Excise registration but it belong to the same management, therefore the situation is revenue neutral, hence there was no necessity for reversal of credit by Unit No.1, while clearing the inputs, as such, to Unit No.2. He has referred to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar vs. CCE, Allahabad 2007 (219) ELT 606 (Tri.Del.). 4. Per contra, Shri S.P.Pal, Ld.A.R. for the Revenue submitted that in view of the specific provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the transferred inputs was not available to the assessee/appellant himself. In my view, once the appellant/assessee availed cenvat credit, he is duty bound to pay an amount equal to the credit availed in respect of such inputs which are removed as such, as per provisions of rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Moreover, I find that the appellant does not even place any evidence before me that the transferred inputs were ultimately used to manufacture dutiable goods and these dutiable goods were actually cleared on payment of duty from their other unit. Therefore, this hypothetical issue of revenue neutrality does not come to rescue the case of the appellant. 6. I do not find any reason to interfere with the aforesaid finding of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
