2019 (3) TMI 1175

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the duty actually paid by them to the sister concern - In the case of CCE v. MDS Switchgear Ltd., [2008 (8) TMI 37 - SUPREME COURT], the Apex Court has held that recipient manufacturer is entitled to avail the benefit of duty and quantum of duty already determined by the jurisdictional officer of the supplier unit cannot be contested or challenged by the officer incharge of the recipient unit. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Joseph Marcos, Advocate For the Appellant Mrs. Kavita Podwal, Superintendent, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 08/11/2018 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ble in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law and binding judicial precedents. He further submitted that the credit taken is on the duty actually paid and no refund was sought. Moreover, the whole issue is revenue neutral. He further submitted that the Commissioner (A) has wrongly held that the credit eligible to the appellant is only to the extent of duty leviable on input received by them that the availment and utilization of credit on the duty actually paid is without authority and liable to be disallowed. He further submitted that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled in favour of the assessee by various decisions cited below: * IPF Vikram India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Cent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... jurisdictional officer of the supplier unit cannot be contested or challenged by the officer incharge of the recipient unit. Further, I also note that in the case of Cipla Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal has held that credit cannot be varied at the recipient's end on the ground that the supplier should have paid lesser duty. Further, in the case of IPF Vikram India Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal has followed the judgment of VG Steel Industry v. Commissioner reported in 2011 (271) ELT 508 and held that the assessee is entitled to take CENVAT credit of the duty paid on the inputs as per Rule 3 of the Central Excise Rules. In view of the decisions cited supra, I am of the considered view that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X