9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 877X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the consignment was received by the Appellant is not in dispute. The said invoices clearly indicate duty-paid character of the said goods. It is also undisputed that the said inputs were received in the factory of the Appellants and consumed therein. It is the case of the Revenue that inputs being of prime quality the Appellants could not have used the same for melting. There is no restriction in the CENVAT Credit Rules that the Appellants should not use the prime quality materials for the manufacture of final products. As long as there is no dispute regarding the receipt and consumption of the inputs, dutypaid character thereof, the benefit of the CENVAT Credit cannot be denied to the Appellant. The facts of the present case a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nufacture a lower valued product in as much as TMT bars cannot be treated as any input for manufacture of MS Ingot. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of CENVAT Credit of Rs.24,59,842/- and also imposed penalty of an equal amount under Rule 15(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) dismissed the Appeal before him. Hence the present Appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The Ld.Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has passed the Order-in-Appeal dated 30.01.2018 ex parte without granting reasonable opportunity of hearing which is violative of the principles of natural justice and makes the order a nullity. Further the submissions made in the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission that the iron and steel in the form of TMT bar and cutting were absolutely of inferior quality but at the same time they could be used as melting scrap in the manufacture of MS ingots hence credit cannot be denied on such iron and steel products. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bhagwati Steel Cast Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik [2008 (222) E.L.T. 158 (Tri.- Mumbai)], Regent Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2017 (6) G.S.T.L. 15 (Guj.)], Gupta Metal Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi [2004 (178) E.L.T. 805 (Tri.-Del.)]. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the Department justified the impugned orders and prayed that the Appeal fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
