9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL No. E/3904/2005-EX[SM] - A/70989/2018-SM[BR] - Dated:- 24-4-2018 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri A.P. Mathur (Advocate) for Appellant Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh (Dy. Commr.) AR for Respondent Per: Anil Choudhary The issue in this appeal relates to Cenvat Credit taken by the appellant-assessee during the Financial year 1998 99 for ₹ 41,701/-. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is a manufacturer of industrial gases‟. They have two manufacturing units at Ghaziabad, one at Industrial Area, Site-IV Sahibabad and the other at A/4/2, South Side of G.T. Road, Industrial Area, Ghaziabad. The appellant availed Cenvat Credit of ₹ 41,701/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... name of Goyal Gases Ltd., while name of consignee is written as Goyal M.G. Gases Ltd., Ghaziabad. Admittedly Goyal Gases Ltd., is the sister unit of the appellant and there is no dispute by Revenue as regards receipt of goods and consumption of such goods by the appellant in their manufacturing unit. Accordingly, relying on the ruling of this Tribunal in the case of C.D. Engineering Company vs. CCE reported at 1999 (105) ELT 194 (T), it was held that the credit availed by the appellant is proper and legal. 4. The appellant thereafter took the credit of the said amount of ₹ 41,701/- and reflected this in their ER-1 return for the month of December, 2003. Such taking of credit was objected to by Revenue resulting in issuance of Sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2004. 5. Thereafter Revenue being aggrieved with the said Order-in-Original filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) again the Memorandum Order No. 23/2004 05 and vide Order-in-Appeal dated 30 September, 2005 the learned Commissioner (Appeals) have been pleased to hold that the refund in question was hit both by time bar as well as unjust enrichment clause and the same was not admissible to the assessee and accordingly, allowed the appeal of Revenue. 6. Aggrieved by the order the appellant-assessee is before this Tribunal. 7. Heard the parties at length. 8. I find that show cause notice was issued in June, 2004, which is ab initio void and not permissible under the provisions of the Central Excise Act and the Rules there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
