2015 (10) TMI 1669

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... been conducted at the end of first stage dealer/manufacturer of the goods. Moreover, it is not the allegation against the appellant that the appellant has not received the goods and has not paid duty thereon. In these circumstances, whatever duty has been paid by the appellant on the said goods, appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit. Therefore, we hold that appellant has taken Cenvat credit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e M.S. Ingots wherein the invoice of the manufacture is of M.S. Ingots only. In these circumstances for the period from June, 2001 to July, 2001, the show cause notice dated 9-12-2004 was issued to the appellant to deny Cenvat credit on the allegation that there is a mis-match of description of goods. Consequently, impugned demands were upheld by both the authorities. 3. Against the said order, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ase, the only ground to deny the Cenvat credit is that the description of the goods on the invoice issued by the first stage dealer does not match with the invoice/manufacturer but no investigation has been conducted at the end of first stage dealer/manufacturer of the goods. Moreover, it is not the allegation against the appellant that the appellant has not received the goods and has not paid dut .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X