TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of CCE. & C., VADODARA-II Versus EUPEC-WELSPUN PIPE COATINGS INDIA LTD. [2009 (12) TMI 561 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.E/589/11 - - - Dated:- 5-3-2012 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran and Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri Jigar Shah, Adv For the Respondent: Shri S.K. Mall, A.R. JUDGEMENT Per: Mr. M.V. Ravindran; This stay petition is filed for the waiver of pre-deposit of an amount of Rs.1,34,11,036/- as denial of cenvat credit of the inputs received by the appellant, interest thereof and penalty of Rs.5 lakhs under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. After hearing both sides for some time on the stay petition, we find that the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssions made by both sides and perusal of the records, we find that there is no dispute as to the receipt of the goods in appellants premise under the bill of entry as also subsequent issue of invoices by the Tata Chemicals Ltd., and consumption thereof for the fabrication. It is also undisputed that the bills of entry were endorsed by M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. indicating the name of the appellant s factory as the recipients/consignee s of the said inputs. We find that in an identical issue, (as correctly pointed out by the Ld. Counsel) it was held in favour of assessee by the Tribunal, which was carried out in appeal by the Revenue to the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat, wherein their lordships observed as under: Whether the CENVAT Credit is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. The Tribunal, therefore, took the view that the same has to be considered as part of the bill of entry and both of them cannot be segregated and seen in isolation as done by the Department. The Tribunal, on the basis of these materials on record, took the view that the credit has to be allowed in view of the provisions of Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules (sic). 3.?Since, the Tribunal has recorded finding of facts and it is also in consonance with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules (sic), we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises out of the order of the CESTAT. We, therefore, summarily dismiss this Tax Appeal. 6. The hereinabove reproduced ratio of their lordships, in an appeal filed by Revenue now squarel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
