9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... document. In this case there is not dispute about the duty paid document wherein the name of the respondent is appearing as consignee. Thus the fact that ownership was with M/s CVL is not an impediment to avail the cenvat credit. Therefore on this count the appeal fails. I do not find any infirmity in the observation made by the Ld. Commissioner (A) in the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order is upheld. - Decided against the Revenue - Appeal No. E/50379/2015-EX(SM) - Final Order No. 143/2016-CHD - Dated:- 4-2-2016 - Ashok Jindal, Member (J) For the Petitioner : Shri K Podar, AR For the Respondent : Ms Swati Gupta, Adv ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mponents, raw material, inputs and parts, which were used in manufacture of Package Type Boiler also and other sub-assemblies which were utilised by M/s CVL Sonepat for manufacture of goods as per the agreement between the respondent and M/s CVL Chennai. As respondent has not physically received and remained in the possession of the said goods, therefore, the respondent is not entitled to take cenvat credit on these goods. Therefore a show cause notice was issued to deny cenvat credit to the respondent. The matter was adjudicated. The adjudicating authority after going to the facts of the case dropped, the proceedings, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (A) who upholds the view taken by the adjudicating authority. Aggri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontrary to the facts of the respondent. As has been confirmed in the show cause notice and also the order in original, although these goods were purchased by M/s CVL but were consigned directly to the premises of the respondent. In terms of agreement entered between respondent and M/s CVL, M/s CVL was to manufacture and supply boiler etc and such manufacture was to take place at the premises of the respondent out of the goods so purchased by CVL for this purpose and consigned to the respondent. I find that ownership of the goods is not a pre-condition for the manufacture to be entitled to the credit of duty paid on the inputs. The only condition is that the goods should be duty paid and they are intended for use in or in relation to the man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
