2016 (4) TMI 1328

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... isputed by learned counsel for the appellant that Tata Steel did not claim any refund of duty on the reduced price nor is it the case of the appellant that it is not on account of subsequent negotiations that had taken place between Bhushan Steel and Tata Steel that the price of inputs procured by Bhushan Steel was reduced - Such being the position when Tata Steel has not claimed any refund of dut .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n holding that CENVAT Credit of duty availed in excess and not proportionate to the assessable value of raw materials in terms of Section 4 of the Act ibid received by the party from their vendor/s is admissible to the Manufacturer by overlooking the statutory provisions of Rule 3(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 4 and 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal before the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e CENVAT credit duty contained in the discount. The Tribunal has found as a fact that Tata Steel did not make any claim for payment of that extra duty on account of reduction of price and in view of the Circular dated 17 November 2008 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise Customs Vs. MDS Switchgear .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X