TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)].- After hearing ld. Advocate Shri Mayur Shroff appearing for the appellant and Shri Abhay Poyeraker ld. JDR for the Revenue, we find that the dispute in the present appeal relates to Modvat credit of duty availed by the appellant on the basis of the supplementary invoices raised by their job worker. 2. As per facts on record app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 16,57,380/- along with interest of Rs. 1,58,947/-. Simultaneously supplementary invoices were raised by them, on the basis of which appellant took Modvat credit. The dispute relates to such quantum of credit availed by the appellant. 3. The lower authorities have held that in terms of the provisions of Rule 7(1)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2002, the appellant is not entitled to avail the credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty was paid. The Additional Commissioner's order is to the effect that the case was also booked against the job workers for appreciation of paid amount and demanding interest and imposing penalty. This leads us to believe that the amount was paid prior to issuance of the show cause notice. The appellants have also strongly contended that M/s. Maharashtra Engineering have themselves calculated t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayment of duty. 5. When viewed in the above circumstances it seems to be a clear case of lapse on the part of job workers. Had there been any intention to evade payment of duty, the appellant would not have enhanced the cost of the raw material being supplied by them thus requiring their job workers to enhance the assessable value and to pay higher duty quantum. The provisions of Rule 7(1a)(b) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
