9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06/2017 - Dated:- 5-12-2017 - Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri. Rajesh Ostwal, Advocate for appellant Shri. Manoj Kumar, Jt. Comm. (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: Raju 1. This appeal has been filed by Bilt Graphic Paper Products Ltd. against demand of Cenvat Credit on the goods short received for which the appellants had raised debit note to the suppliers. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that they were purchasing inputs and sometimes there was shortages of supply of inputs and the appellants raised debit note to the supplier. Revenue sought to deny the Cenvat Credit in respect of value attributable to such debit note. The said demands of reversal of Cenvat Credit was confirmed along with interest. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following judgements to assert that no credit is required to reverse in this situation. a) Mardia Chemicals Ltd. - 2003 (158) ELT 378 (Tri-Mumbai) b) Gharda Chemicals Ltd. - 2004 (176) ELT 296 (Tri-Mumbai) c) Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd. - 2010 (249) ELT 218 (Tri-LB) 2.2 He further argued that the credit taken has not been utilized and therefore, no interest can be demanded. He further argued that extended period of limitation not invocable in this situation. Consequently, no penalty under Rule 11AC can be imposed. 3. Ld. AR relied on the impugned order. 4. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that the appellants have primarily relied on the decision in the case of Bhuwalka Steel Industries (Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant to prove that the suppliers did not take any refund of duty as no confirmatory clarification was forthcoming. He proceeded to confirm the demand. We find that the reasoning given by the Original Authority is very strange and legally unsustainable. Admittedly, the appellants paid Central Excise duty on the inputs as per the invoices of the suppliers. It is also recorded that certain debit notes were issued later which resulted in the presumption that the duty actually payable on the inputs by the suppliers are lesser than what is paid by the appellant. Hence, the credit taken by the appellants was not legally correct. We find even the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the appellant did not submit proof that the suppliers did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
