9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 939X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E/51243/2018-DB - A/50321/2019-EX[DB] - Dated:- 21-2-2019 - Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) And Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial) Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate - for the appellant Shri R.K. Mishra, DR - for the respondent ORDER Per V. Padmanabhan : This appeal is directed against the order-in-Original No. 29/17-18 dated 22.12.2017. The appellant s unit is situated at Bhiwadi, Alwar, Rajasthan and is engaged in the manufacture of steel profile sheets. For use in the manufacture of the goods, the appellant procured raw material, viz. coated steel coils from sister concern situated at Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. The Central Excise duty paid on the inputs by the Jamshedpur unit was availed as Cenvat credit by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allenged in the present proceedings. The adjudicating authority also ordered payment of interest and penalty equal to the amount of Cenvat credit ordered to be reversed. 3. In this connection, heard Shri Vivek Sharma, ld. Advocate for the appellant as well as Shri R.K. Mishra, ld. AR of the Department. 4. The ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the Cenvat credit has been ordered for reversal incorrectly. He submitted that there is no dispute that the inputs procured by the appellant unit was cleared after payment of Central Excise duty by Bhiwadi unit. He referred to Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002 and submitted that a manufacturer of final products shall be allowed to take the credit of various dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urpose of such transfer was arrived at in terms of Central Excise Valuation Rules. The Revenue noticed that the suppler unit paid duty in excess of what they were required to pay and hence denied the Cenvat credit for the appellant unit for the portion of excise duty in excess. 8. We find that this dispute is no longer res integra. Similar issue was decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of, MDS Switchgear Ltd (supra), wherein the Apex Court upheld the view taken by the Tribunal and is quoted below: The ratio of all these decisions is that the credit cannot be varied at recipient s end on the ground that the supplier should have paid lesser duty. We, accordingly, are of the view that denial of the credit to the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
