9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst Order-in-Appeal No. 33/2012 dated 13.4.2012 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi-I whereunder Cenvat credit amount of Rs. 29,25,544/- has been disallowed along with imposition of equivalent amount of penalty. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant sent their goods for job work under Notification No. 214/86-CE for paint work of canopy. The job work was given to M/s Inditex India. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Shri Naveen Mullick, for the appellant and Ms. Kanu Verma Kumar, for the Revenue. 4. Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.3.1986 in its clause (iii) makes a mention that supplier of the goods, who sends the goods for job work, undertakes the responsibilities of discharging the liabilities in respect of Central Excise duty leviable on the finished products. In other words, the appellant is respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is clarified that action against the consignee to reverse/recover the Cenvat credit availed of in such cases need not be resorted to as long as the bona fide, nature of the consignee's transaction is not in dispute." 4.2 The appellant has also referred to Stay Order No.56592-56593-EX(DB) dated 4.3.2013 in the case of Malhotra Cables Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2013 (293) ELT 72 (Tri.-Del.), where it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Metals had admittedly cleared the goods on payment of duty, though may be according to the Revenue, by utilizing the wrong credit, the denial of the credit of the same to present applicant would neither be just nor proper, at this prima facie stage. It is well settled law that the assessment done at the input supplier end cannot be changed at the input receiver end. The inputs having been cleare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
