9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 1046X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AL No. 24 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 21-4-2010 - D.A.MEHTA H.N.DEVANI , JJ. For The Appellant : MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA For The Respondent : MR PARESH V SHETH JUDGMENT : The appellant-revenue has challenged order dated 24.6.2008 made by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), proposing the following question : Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that credit can be allowed merely on the strength of the invoices of manufacturer if the goods are not manufactured by him? 2. The facts stated briefly are that the respondent herein placed an order with one M/s Ishan Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as M/s Ishan) for a 10MW Slow Speed Alternator with AVRS and Voltag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it on the basis of invoice issued by M/s Ishan. 6. A perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal, shows that the Tribunal has, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, recorded that there is no dispute that the duty on the capital goods in question i.e. Speed Alternator with AVRS and Voltage Control System stood paid by M/s Ishan Technologies Pvt. Ltd. under the cover of a central excise invoice. There is also no dispute as regards the fact that the respondent had received the alternator in question. The Tribunal placed reliance upon Rules 7 and 9(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 (the Rules) and observed that in view of the said provisions, it is the duty of the input receiver to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ishan in the specified area and that M/s Ishan is not entitled to refund of the duty paid by it, the revenue can always refuse the same at the time of considering the claim of M/s Ishan for refund of the duty. Placing reliance upon a decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Jyoti Ltd., 2008 (223) ELT 171 (Guj), the Tribunal was of the view that in absence of any clear cut evidence that the capital goods as indicated in the duty paying documents were not received by the respondent; the ratio of the decision laid down by this Court in said decision covers the issue in favour of the respondent. 8. Sub-rule (1) of rule 7 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002, insofar as the same is relevant for the present purpose, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
