2015 (2) TMI 1288

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s taken the credit, were not covering the consignments in question - Held that:- As observed by Commissioner (Appeals), there is no doubt that the respondents have received the goods directly from Chennai and have used the same in the manufacture of their final product. As such, the procedural and technical objections raised by the Revenue cannot be appreciated - appeal dismissed - decided against .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vat credit of ₹ 12,95,021/- on the quantity of 1106.82 of pet coke received by them from M/s. Rain Commodities Ltd., Kurnool (RCL), on the basis of invoices issued by them during the month of March, 2010 and April, 2010. The corresponding transport documents revealed that the goods stand transported from Chennai as per the consignment notes issued by the transporters. As such, Revenue entert .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... factory premises, same was sent directly by RCL, to the respondent s premises. The another objection of the Revenue that the goods attracted duty @ 14% ad valorem whereas RCL has paid 16% was also not accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that whatever duty was paid stands taken as credit by the present respondent. He also held the demand to be barred by limitation. Accordingly he .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X