9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal dated 18th May, 2004 which allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent against Order-in-Original dated 31-3-2003 which confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty on the respondent. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration that the respondents availed Modvat credit on the inputs. They cleare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... motu. The Revenue authorities issued the show cause notice against this action of recredit done by the respondent on the ground that they have availed the credit without producing any duty paying documents. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed the penalty. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the same and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent. Hence, thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as reported as 2004 (166) E.L.T. 384 (Tri.-Mumbai). I find in this case that the Revenue has not issued any show cause notice demanding the amount of credit which is sought to be denied to the respondent. In the absence of any such confirmation of amount, suo motu credit availed by the respondent cannot be defaulted. I find that the case law relied upon by the learned D.R. where the Modvat is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue cannot retain any amount which is not due to them.
7. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Since cross-objection filed by the respondents is only in support of the order-in-appeal, the same is disposed of as being not pressed. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
