9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate for Assessee Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi, Asstt. Commr. (AR), for Revenue ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary These appeals have been preferred by the appellant-assessee against Order-in-Appeal No. 118-CE/GZB/2011-12 dated 22/06/2011 205-206-CE/GZB/2010 dated 24/09/2010 both passed by Commissioner of Central Excise Customs (Appeals), Ghaziabad. 2. Appellant is a manufacturer of PVC Pipes, PVC Pipes fittings and water tanks falling under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Show cause notice dated 13/09/2010 was issued for the period October 2009 to August 2010, as it appeared to revenue that the appellant have taken Cenvat credit in respect of returned goods under the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ations proposing disallowance of Cenvat credit ₹ 3,76,997/- along with interest and penalty as in the other SCN. 4. Both the show cause notices were adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 28th February, 2011 and the proposed demands were confirmed. Further, penalty of equal amount of ₹ 8,76,614/- was imposed under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11 AC of the Act. Further penalty of ₹ 5000/- was also imposed on Shri S.S. Bhatnagar, Manager Commercial, under the provision of Rule 15 of CCR. Being aggrieved, appellant preferred appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order dated 22/06/2011 was pleased to drop the personal penalty on Shri S.S. Bhatnagar, Manager (Commercial) but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch duty paid defective goods received in the factory for carrying out the processes under Rule 16(1) of the rules are eligible for cenvat credit and accordingly, the impugned order confirming the Cenvat demand is set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. 6. Learned A.R. for revenue relies on the impugned order. 7. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the issue herein is squarely covered in favour of the appellants. Under similar facts and circumstances, this Tribunal categorically held that there is no basis for the allegations of the revenue that the goods or finished goods cleared by the appellant have not been received back, even except assumption and/or presumptions. Accordingly, I hold that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
