TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egistration in terms of rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and in terms of sub-rule (2) of rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, [for short ‘the rules’] a credit availed of as duty paid by an unregistered dealer is not allowed as CENVAT credit and therefore a sum of Rs.68,052/- was disallowed. Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal allowed the appeal. Held that- in the present case and as indicated by the appellate commissioner and by the Tribunal, the authorities having found as a matter of fact that in respect of the value of the goods amounting to Rs.68,052/- the duty, in fact, had been paid at one point or the other and such duty paid goods constitute an input in respect of which assessee had availed of Cenvat credit, that in our opin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty to an extent of Rs.68,052/- availed of by the assessee in respect of the following four invoices. Date of issue of invoice IOC Invoice No. Cenvat credit disallowed [Rs.] 11-10-04 604081790 25594 6-12-04 604858383 24229 24-1-05 605574712 17921 30-3-05 606547405 17921 68,052 4. In respect of this period, the assessee had originally claimed Cenvat credit totaling an amount of Rs.86,607/-. The adjudicating authority found that the assessee had availed of excess credit to the extent of Rs.14,399/- as on verification it was found that the supplier of the inputs to the assessee had, in fact, paid duty only for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ' reported in 2006 (195) E.L.T. 267 (Guj.), dismissed the appeal being of the view that the transaction going through a reputed public sector undertaking like the IOCL, goods supplied by them would have necessarily suffered duty and in this view of the matter did not find occasion to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority. 7. Against this order, the present appeal. 8. We have heard Sri. Pramod, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Central Government appearing on behalf of the appellant. 9. Mr. Pramod, learned Junior standing Counsel would submit that the tribunal has committed an error in overlooking the requirement of sub-rule [2] of rule 9 of the rules; that if the manufacturer, otherwise did not have the bene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
