9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 792X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cenvat credit cannot be disputed on the ground that whether the said input is liable to duty or otherwise at the end of the supplier. Once the supplier has paid the duty whether it is payable or otherwise, the said duty is clearly admissible as cenvat credit. The assessment of duty payment on the part of the supplier cannot be disputed at the end of the recipient of the input therefore, there is no reason to deny the cenvat credit once the duty paid inputs were received by the appellant - reliance can be placed in the case of COMMR. OF C. EX. S.T., JAIPUR-I VERSUS DCM SHRIRAM CONSOLIDATED PVT. LTD. [ 2017 (8) TMI 886 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] . In the present case duty was paid by M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. against invalidation of adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent appeals. 02. Shri S J Vyas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that once the input is received duty paid, that duty is available as a cenvat credit to the recipient. There is no restriction for such cenvat credit even though it was not payable by the supplier of input. He submits that the issue is squarely covered by the following judgments:- SHRIRAM CONSOLIDATED PVT. LTD.- 2017 (8) TMI 886- CESTAT NEW DELHI MDS SWITCHGEAR LTD.- 2008 (8) TMI 37- SUPREME COURT NAHAR GRANITES LTD.- 2014 (5) TMI 57- GUJARAT HIGH COURT 03. Shri Kalpesh Shah, learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 04. We have carefully considered the sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... up before the Apex Court in the case of CCE C v. MDS Switchgear Ltd., 2008 (229) E.L.T. 485 (S.C.), wherein it was observed that the recipient manufacturer is entitled to avail the benefit. A quantum of duty, already determined by the jurisdictional officer of the supplier unit, cannot be contested or challenged by the officer of recipient unit. 5. In the light of above discussion and considering the totality of the case, we are of the view that the credit, so availed, amounting to 7 10,68,037/- in respect of duty paid indigenous inputs procured against the invalidated advance licence/authorization, is admissible and is in order. Hence, we find no merit in the appeal filed by the Department and uphold the impugned order along with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upplier unit cannot be con tested or challenged by the officers in charge of recipient unit [2000 (38) RLT 179]. 8. Counsel appearing for the Revenue could not assail any of the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 9. That being the position, we agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and find no merit in these appeals which are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The identical issue has been considered by the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of NAHAR GRANITES LTD. which is reproduced below:- 7. Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 allows a manufacturer or producer of final product or a provider of taxable service to take cenvat credit of the duty of excise specified in the First Schedul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sification of such manufacturer, accepted the declarations and duties, cenvat credit on such duty cannot be declined to the purchaser of the goods who otherwise fulfilled all conditions for availing cenvat credit thereof. 9. Case is substantially similar to one before the Supreme Court in case of MDS Switchgear Ltd ( supra). In the said case, the tribunal while accepting the department's allegation of inflation of the value of intermediate goods to load the assessable value, observed that if the department was of the opinion that the value of the final product was depressed, it could have charged the original manufacturer unit in under invoicing their product. This was however, not done. Valuation was duly approved and the payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
