TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicate that the respondents had any intent to evade payment of duty by taking wrong cenvat credit - Do not find any infirmity in the impugned order - The Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. - E/844/2005 - 878/2010-EX(PB) - Dated:- 8-12-2010 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Nittin Anand, DR, for the Appellant. Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)]. The facts leading to this appeal are, in brief, as under : 1.1 The respondents in their factory situated at Sector III, Sagore Pithampur, Indore manufacture motor vehicle chassis and motor vehicle parts, chargeable to Central Excise duty under chapter sub-heading No. 8702.90 and 8706.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have not included the value of the brake assemblies in the assessable value of rear/front axles sold to the respondent and in view of this, M/s. Spicer India Ltd., Pune paid duty of Rs. 10,59,169/- on the value of brake assemblies under supplementary invoices issued to the respondent and on the basis of the said invoices, the respondent also took credit of Rs. 10,59,169/-. However, subsequently, show cause notice was issued to M/s. Spicer India Ltd., Pune for confirmation of duty demand of Rs. 10,59,169/- and imposition of penalty which was adjudicated and the duty demand against them was confirmed holding that they have suppressed the relevant information with regard to the value of rear/front axles with intent to evade the duty. The depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 22-9-2004 by which - (a) Modvat/Cenvat Credit demands as made in the show cause notice were confirmed alongwith interest against the respondent; and (b) Penalty of Rs. 10,59,238/- was imposed on the respondent under Rule 57-I(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 1.5 On appeal being filed by the respondent against the order of the Additional Commissioner before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order in appeal dated 13-12-04 set aside the order confirming Modvat/Cenvat Credit demand of Rs. 10,59,238/- alongwith interest and imposition of penalty of equal amount. As regards cenvat credit demand of Rs. 10,59,16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard both sides. 3. Shri Nittin Anand, learned DR assailed the impugned order reiterating the grounds of appeal in the Revenue appeal emphasised that since the respondents had not physically received the brake assemblies, they could not take credit in respect of the same. 4. Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate, the learned Counsel representing the respondent, defended the impugned order reiterating the findings in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and pleaded that while the brake assemblies purchased by the respondents had not been received in the factory of the respondent at Indore, M/s. Kalyani Brakes Ltd., Jalgaon had sent the same directly to M/s. Spicer India Ltd., Pune for being fitted with rear/front axles on the instruction of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
