TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Cylinder, there is no ambiguity that the supplier have correctly paid the duty without availing the Exemption Notification 49/2006-CE dated 30.12.2006. The entire basis for denial of the credit is on the view which was completely contrary to the clarification given in the above letter dated 08.08.2013. It is found that it is the supplier s Jurisdictional Officers who have to assess whether duty was correctly paid or otherwise and the same has been clarified by the supplier s jurisdictional officer. The jurisdictional officer of the appellant has no jurisdiction to question the assessment or correctness of the payment of duty. Thus, the appellant have correctly availed the cenvat credit on the Rotogravure Printing Cylinder supplied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect on the face of clarification issued by the suppliers jurisdictional Chief Commissioner whereby it was clarified that the goods manufactured by the supplier manufacturer have paid the duty correctly and also directed to continue paying duty without availing benefit of Notification No. 49/2006-CE, therefore, the suppliers have paid the duty correctly and legally. Accordingly, the credit of the appellant, who being a recipient of the goods, cannot be questioned. He further submits that in the appellant s own case for the subsequent period the cenvat credit was allowed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in two orders-in appeal on the same issue and the same were accepted by the department. He placed reliance on the following judgments: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oja Division to the supplier is scanned below : From the above clarification given to the supplier of the Rotogravure Printing Cylinder, there is no ambiguity that the supplier have correctly paid the duty without availing the Exemption Notification 49/2006-CE dated 30.12.2006. The entire basis for denial of the credit is on the view which was completely contrary to the clarification given in the above letter dated 08.08.2013. We find that it is the supplier s Jurisdictional Officers who have to assess whether duty was correctly paid or otherwise and the same has been clarified by the supplier s jurisdictional officer. The jurisdictional officer of the appellant has no jurisdiction to question the assessment or correctness of the pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
