9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; This appeal is filed against OIA No.CCEA-SRT-II/SSP-327/u/s 35A(3)(Final Order), dt.22.03.2013, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), C.Ex. & S.Tax, Surat-II. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellant had availed total CENVAT credit of Rs. 3,54,631/- during the period April 2008 to December 2009 on the invoices issued in the name of their loan licencee M/s Lekar Pharma. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uly endorsed by the input supplier. It is his contention that there is no dispute about the receipt of the inputs/input services in the factory and its utilization in the manufacture of finished goods. Therefore, the CENVAT Credit cannot be denied on the invoices/documents corrected later, entering the Appellants name in the same. He submits that even though the corrected invoices/doc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant and not in the name of the Appellant, CENVAT Credit cannot be admissible. I find that the Appellant later corrected the invoices/documents from the input supplier by incorporating their name; besides the said inputs/input services were received and utilized in the manufacture of final products. I find that the issue is covered by the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
