9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant have not received the inputs-transformer oil, the credit of which has been disputed. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) have also accepted the receipt of the input, but have only observed that it appears that the input have been received in the head office and not in the factory. There is no allegation of the revenue that the head office is a separate manufacturing unit. Accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormers, purchased new insulating oil vide invoice No.00827 dated 14/7/2008 and took Cenvat credit of ₹ 1,76,812/-. During the course of audit by Revenue in January, 2010, the taking of the said credit was objected to, and, the appellant reversed the credit. The objection of the audit was that the invoice of the said input was not addressed to the factory address, but the same was addressed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest under Section 11 AB, which has been erroneously not charged in the adjudication order. Vide orders of even date both the appeals were decided vide separate orders. The Commissioner (Appeals) was pleased to dismiss the appeal of the assessee observing that the goods were received in the head office of the appellant and the appellants failed to produce any evidence regarding delivery/transpor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls) have also accepted the receipt of the input, but have only observed that it appears that the input have been received in the head office and not in the factory. There is no allegation of the revenue that the head office is a separate manufacturing unit. Accordingly I hold that the appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit of ₹ 1,76,812/- under the facts and circumstances. Accordingly, both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
