9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I CABLE LTD. [ 2005 (1) TMI 127 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI] . Furthermore, the decision of the Tribunal in ACE TYRES LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, HYDERABAD-IV [ 2017 (2) TMI 533 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] on identical facts, has also held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied. Penalties - HELD THAT:- With the demand being unsustainable in consequence, the penalties imposed on the assessee as well as the individual also fail. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/317 & 318/2012 - A/85864-85865/2020 - Dated:- 24-2-2020 - MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND DR SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Rajesh Ostwal, Advocate for the applicant appellant Shri Anil Chou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity discharged by M/s SRF Ltd, Chennai who had cleared the cargo and that special additional duty of ₹ 2,98,479 could not be availed as credit owing to non-leviability arising from notification no. 20/2006-Cus dated 1st March 2006. The confirmation of non-eligibility in the impugned order and the consequential detriments has brought these appeals before us. 3. According to Learned Counsel for appellants, proceedings against similar availment of credit by their unit at Nashik was dropped by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise vide order-in-original no. 04/CEX/2014 dated 29th March 2014 on identical set of facts. He submits that a contrary stand cannot be adopted by Revenue in the present proceedings as the said orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel, settled by the decisions of the Tribunal in Cipla Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs Central Excise, Pune-III [2011 (273) ELT 391 (Tri-Mumbai)] and in Uniworth Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur [2013 (292) ELT 119 (Tri-Del)] and by the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana in Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana v. Perfect Synthetics [2006 (206) ELT 71 (P H)]. 5. We have heard Learned Authorised Representative. 6. We find that the identical controversy dealt with by Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik has upheld the eligibility for CENVAT credit despite the alleged deficiencies. In doing so, reliance was placed on the decision of the Tribunal in Eveready Industries India Ltd v. Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
