9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se for consideration are the appellants herein availed Cenvat credit on the basis of supplementary invoices issued by the Ispat Metallics (I) Ltd. The said supplementary invoices were issued by IMIL against the additional duty paid on the ground of upward revision of the price of the goods supplied by them to the current appellant. The revenue officers on investigation came to the conclusion that IMIL had not paid the appropriate duty when the clearances were effected at the first instance and subsequently paid the duty on being pointed out by the revenue officers, which would in turn mean that there was suppression of the fact on the part of the IMIL and there was an intention to remove the said goods without payment of appropriate dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cords. 7. The issue involved in this case is denial of Modvat credit to the appellants on the ground that the appellant's supplier i.e. IMIL had issued supplementary invoices for the upward price revision, which they should have not done so, on the ground that there was an intentional evasion of duty by the said IMIL. On perusal of the record, we find that the adjudicating authority being also the Commissioner-in-charge of the supplier i.e., IMIL has not issued any show cause notice to IMIL for the confirmation of demand of amount, as short paid by them in respect of these supplementary invoices, on which the credit was availed. It is also on record that no show cause notice is issued to the said supplier for the imposition of penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in any form. It is also on record that there is no allegation against the current appellant as to collusion between him and the supplier, for intentional evasion of duty. In the absence of any such allegations, and there being no demand made on supplier, under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, we find that the order-in-original is unsustainable. The said order-in-original denying the Cenvat credit is against the law, as settled by the Tribunal in the case of Sunbel Alloys Company of India Ltd., (supra). We may read the ratio of the said decision:- "It is on record that differential duty was paid by the supplier of the goods, on his own voluntarily, on pointing out the same by the department. The lower authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
