9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oy Steels Ltd. is availing notification No.27/92-(CE-NT) dt.9.10.92 and the supplier has authorised M/s. Global Steels Pvt. Ltd. who actually fabricates the goods for M/s. Bihar Alloys Steels Ltd. and complied with all Central Excise formalities under Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The Range Superintendent also certified that even though M/s. Bihar Alloy Steels Ltd. is not registered under his range and does not have a e.c.c. code number, they are eligible to remove the goods under their invoices based on which they party buying the said goods can take modvat credit. - invoice issued by the supplier who is exempted from taking registration is a valid document. Further, I find that there is no dispute on the payment of Central Excise dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er introduction of Rule 57F (4A) w.e.f.16.3.95. He submits that there are two Tribunal's order in the appellant's own case on the identical issue. One is passed by Single Member Bench reported in 2001 (138) ELT 544 (Tri.-Chennai) in favour of the appellant. Another decision is passed by Division Bench of the Tribunal reported in 2002 (148) ELT 453 (Tri.-Chennai) wherein the Tribunal rejected the appeal of the assessee. 3. Regarding denial of cenvat credit availed on three invoices issued by non-registered persons, he submits that the supplier, M/s. Bihar Alloys Steels Pvt. Ltd. have availed benefit of Notification No.27/92-CE (NT) dt.9.10.1992 as they are exempted from operation of Rule 174 who has authorized M/s. Global Steels P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal in the appellant's own case (supra) and in Tribunal Final Order No.975/2006 dt.26.10.2006 had rejected their appeal on the identical issue pertaining to the demand confirmed for the subsequent periods. The relevant paragraph-6 of Tribunal's decision reported in 2002 (148) ELT 453 (Tri-Chennai) decision is reproduced as under :- 6. We have gone through the whole case records and the impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Counsel confined his argument only in respect of Rule 57E in both these appeals. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the appeals. The plea of the learned Counsel was that fresh duty was paid after 16-3-95 and 57E certificate was issued by the Supdt. in respect of this amount and therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (Appeals) cannot be faulted with. We, therefore, do not find any merits in the appeals and the same are rejected. 7. In view of this Tribunal's Division Bench order dt.3.5.2002 and 26.10.2006, appellant is not entitled to cenvat credit of ₹ 10,50,097/- availed by the appellants after the amendment of Section 57F (4A) w.e.f.16.3.95. Accordingly appeal is liable to be dismissed aside on this issue. 8. On the second issue, I find from the records that appellants have availed modvat credit of ₹ 1,14,005/- on three invoices all dated 6.8.96 issued by M/s. Bihar Alloys Steels Ltd. On perusal of the letter OC No.535/96-97 dt.30.7.96 issued by the jurisdictional Superintendent Range IX F addressed to the appellant the Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
