9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile at the same time mentioning the appellant as the consignee, will not become invalid document for taking Cenvat credit, we therefore, hold that the impugned order is not sustainable. The CENVAT Credit allowed to the appellant - there are no merit in the impugned order and the same is set aside. - Excise Appeal No. 76425 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER NO. 75540/2023 - Dated:- 5-6-2023 - HON BLE MR.ASHOK JINDAL , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) Shri N. K. Chowdhury , Advocate for the Appellant Shri P. K. Ghosh , Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal : The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order where the cenvat credit has been denied to them on the premises that the appellant is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellant in their factory premises and the same were properly recorded in their Books of Account. Even the Invoices in question clearly show the details of the Appellant along with their ECC Number and Central Excise Range and Division etc. The Tribunal in the case of Kunststoff Polymers Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Bhopal -2009 (247) E. L. T. 546 (Tri.-Del.) has held as under:- 4. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and have pursued the records. There is no dispute about the fact that the goods have been procured by the appellant through M/s. Sumitomo Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. However, from the records, it is seen that M/s. Sumitomo Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. had placed the order for the goods with M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the co-relation between goods received by the user manufacturer from the dealer under the dealer s invoice can be established with the goods received by the dealer from the manufacturer. This judgment of the Tribunal has been followed in the cases of Beepee Coatings Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 223 (Tri.-Bom.) and Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai reported in 2003 (161) E.L.T. 710 (Tri.-Chennai). In this case it is not the case of the Department that the goods were notreceived directly by the appellant from a second stage dealer M/s. SC Enviro Agro India Pvt. Ltd. In view of these circumstances, just because the invoices issued by M/s. SC Enviro Agro India Pvt. Ltd. mention M/s. Sumitomo Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
