9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon'ble High Court held that the embargo under Rule 7(1)(b) cannot come in the way when there is no sale and it was only Stock Transfer between two Units of the same company. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/00340/2006 and E/CO/40910/2016 - 41017/2017 - Dated:- 15-6-2017 - Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member For the Appellant - Shri S. Nagalingam, AC (AR) For the Respondent - Shri MB Kannan, Adv. ORDER Per Bench: The present appeal is filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.5/2006 (P), dated 19.01.2006. The brief facts of the case inter alia are that the respondents are manufacturers of bolts, nuts and screws and avail Cenvat credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m in terms of Rule 7(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 on 28.7.2001 based on such supplementary invoice issued by SFL which pertained to the differential duty paid by them consequent to the case booked by the DGCEI After due process of law, the Ld. Lower authority passed the impugned order disallowing the Cenvat Credit mentioned supra and also imposed equal penalty under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. When the issue was challenged before Commissioner (Appeals), he allowed Cenvat credit and set aside the demand. 2. Aggrieved by the impugned order, Revenue had filed this appeal. 3. We have heard Shri S. Nagalingam, AC (AR) on behalf of Revenue and Shri M. Kannan, Adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of wire out of wire rods. Even though such process does not amount to manufacture, the Madurai Unit chose to pay the duty on the finished products, which stands cleared to Chennai Unit. The investigation carried out by DGCEI concluded that the Madurai Unit had incorrectly adopted the value for the purposes of payment of duty for clearances to Chennai Unit. The case was settled at the level of Settlement Commission and the differential duty was paid and supplementary invoices issued based on which such credit have been taken. 7. We find that a similar issue came before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Karnataka Soaps Detergents Ltd (supra) in which the Hon'ble High Court held that the embargo under Rule 7(1)( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
