9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 1032X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 39,30,378, we allow the Stay Petition and proceed to decide the appeal itself, as the issue is prima facie covered. The Appellant is engaged in manufacture of various excisable goods and were availing the benefit of CENVAT Credit of duty paid on input, capital goods and input services under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2. It was seen that during the period February 2007 to April 2007, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant byway of issuance of Show Cause Notice dated 29th February, 2008, proposing recovery of CENVAT Credit of ₹ 39,30,378 and for confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty. The said proceedings resulted in passing of an order by Additional Commissioner, confirming demand along with interest and imposing penalty of identical amount. On an appeal against the above order, the Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no liability on the Assessee to pay 10 per cent under Rule 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. For arriving at above proposition, Tribunal relied upon the precedent decision in case of M/s Tanfac Industries Ltd. v. CCE, 2009 (235) ELT 103 (Tri-Chennai), laying down that once an amount is debited to DEPB script, it has to be held that the goods stand cleared as duty paid and the same cannot be eq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the said script. This being the case, I find that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras having been utilised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the ratio would clearly apply in this case also. 5. In as much as the issue involved in the present appeal is identical to one decided by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Universal Power Transformer Pvt. Ltd., the ratio of the law declare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
