9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial PVC resin, the question of having any documented receipt of such raw material and more importantly, duty payment of such input cannot be established. In the present case, no such attempt is being made by the appellant for obvious reasons. Credit not allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/55765/2013-EX(DB) - A/52190/2017-EX(DB) - Dated:- 8-3-2017 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri A.K. Prasad, Advocate for the Appellant Shri G.K. Singh, DR for the Respondent Per B. Ravichandran: The appeal is against the order dated 17.10.2012. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of PVC battery separators. Based on investigations conduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who is proprietor of the appellant firm also. The appellants prayed that when the duty demand was confirmed on the final product based on the allegation that the raw material, PVC raisin, has been supplied by M/s. Marvelous Impex and used in the manufacturer of battery separator, then the credit on such PVC raisin should have been allowed by the Original Authority while calculating the duty liability on the final product. The Ld. Counsel relied on certain case laws in support of his submissions. 3. The Ld. AR submitted that the plea, of the appellant that M/s. Marvelous Impex was also owned by proprietor of appellant firm, by itself cannot automatically entitle the appellant for Cenvat Credit. Further, these PVC raisin were imported by M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uts received. In the present case, though one of the main evidence relied upon by the Revenue is raw materials received by the appellant from M/s. Marvelous Impex, that is not the only evidence on which clandestine manufacture and removal by the appellant unit was confirmed. There was a large body of evidence including 26 statements recorded under section 14 of the Central Excise Act 1944, which were examined in the impugned order before arriving at the conclusion. 5. The eligibility of Cenvat Credit on inputs used in the manufacture of battery separators as final product is governed by the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Rule 3 stipulates that credit on various types of duties are available to the manufacture of final product. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case laws. We find that none of the case deals with the situation now under consideration. In the case of Formica India Division Vs. CCE 1995 (77) ELT 511 (SC) , the Hon ble Supreme Court was examining the appellant s entitlement for the benefit under notification no.71/71-CE and benefit under Rule 56 A of the Central Excise Rules. The Hon ble Supreme Court observed that subject to fulfillment of requirements, the appellant shall be eligible to set off duty in terms of Rule 56 A. The Tribunal in the case of Well Known Polyesters Ltd. Vs. CCE Vapi, 2011 (267) ELT 221 (Tri-Ahmd.) held that non registration of a unit cannot be held as a bar to deny Cenvat Credit / Modvat Credit. In the said case, the availability of relevant document re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
