9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Jain, Advocate for the appellant For The Respondent : Sh. Dharam Singh, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran: The appeal is against order dated 24.02.2011 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of RF-Feeder cable liable to Central Excise duty. They were also availing credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods etc. in terms of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit itself was not available. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated which resulted in the impugned order. The original authority ordered recovery of inadmissible credit of Rs. 72,68,314/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the items on which they have taken credit are basically accessories cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... des and perused appeal records. 5. Admittedly, the inputs on which credit was taken as accessories were cleared alongwith RF-Feeder cable by the appellant. There is no dispute in this regard. However, when the appellants cleared the inputs without RF-Feeder cable, the Revenue entertained a view that the credit taken on such inputs, which cannot qualify as accessories in such situation, is ineligi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts have not benefited at all in the process. In fact, they added mark up in the impugned inputs and have paid more duty than the credit taken. It was recorded by the original authority that it is interpretational issue. As such we find no justification to order for further recovery of credit on these inputs which were already reversed by the appellant at the time of clearances. There is no reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
