2007 (1) TMI 399

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....   Heard both the sides. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the demand, which was confirmed after denying the credit and also set aside the penalty. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are working under the Modvat scheme and they received certain raw material under invoices issued by the manufactur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... laration is by the supplier/manufacturer of goods and not by the present respondent and there is no evidence on record to show that the present respondent has connived with supplier with intend to evade duty. 4. The contention of the Revenue in the present appeal is that the inputs which are received by the respondents are of non-alloy steel whereas respondent had received the inputs describ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se, the Revenue accepted the duty paid by manufacturer of inputs and no question has been raised in the present proceedings regarding the payment of duty.  Therefore, I find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the appellants are allowed to take credit of the same duty. The appeal is dismissed. (Order dictated and pronounced in the Court on 12-1-2006)
Case laws, Decisions, Judgemen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X