9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the same in the manufacture of the products. The impugned order denying the CENVAT credit only on the ground of endorsed Bill of Entry is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decide in favor of appellant. - E/MISC/20768/2017 in E/ 1953/2012-DB, E/Early Hearing/ 20013/2015 in E/ 1953/2012-DB, E/ 1953/2012-DB - 20279/2018 - Dated:- 13-2-2018 - MR. SS GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. V. PADMANABHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri Bhanumurthy, Advocate, V, Raghuraman, For the Appellant Shri N. Jagadish, Superintendent(AR), For the Respondent Per: S.S GARG Today, early hearing application of Department has been listed. Since the issue is in a narrow compass, with the consent of both parties, we allow the early hearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same has been passed without appreciating the CENVAT Credit Rules and also contrary to the binding judicial precedent. He further submitted that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra and has been settled in favour of the assessee by various decisions of the Tribunal. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. CCE, Bhopal vs. S.S. Cropcare Ltd. [2016(343) ELT 1087 (Tri. Del)] ii. CCE, Ludhiana vs. Pepsi Foods Ltd. [2010(254) ELT 284 (P H)] ii. UOI vs. Marmgoa Steel Ltd. [2008(229) ELT 481 (SC)] 6. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellant has wrongly availed the CENVAT credit on the documents which are not reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar availment of Cenvat credit on the basis of endorsed Bill of Entry It was not the case of the Revenue that part of the said goods deviated to present respondent The admitted fact is that goods on record are entirely imported goods and were in original packing which stand diverted to the respondent along with the signature of Customs office. It is also seen that the demand was raised against the respondent based upon the objection by the audit, which objection was very strongly opposed by the Revenue itself. If that be so, we really fail to understand as to how the Revenue would be aggrieved with the present order of the Commissioner dropping the demand 8. Therefore by following the ratio of the said decision, we are of the considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
