TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the Commissioner (Appeals) Nos. 218-219/CE/Appeal/Jal/2007, dated 3-8-2007. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondents received inputs namely steel angles and availed deemed credit amounting to Rs. 89,592/- on three consignments received in December, 1998 in terms of Notification No. 58/97, dated 30-8-1997 issued under 57A(6) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he effect that appropriate duty has been paid. Further, the report of the Range Officer in charge of the supplying unit clearly indicates that appropriate duty has not been paid by the respondents for the month of December, 1998. Therefore, he submits that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) should be set aside and that the duty demand and the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- as per the order of the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evy scheme was appropriate or not. He relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Jalandhar v. Mahajan Steel Tubes reported in 2007 (219) E.L.T. 919 (Tri.-Del.) which stand confirmed by the Punjab Haryana High Court [2009 (238) E.L.T. A163 (P H)]. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. It is not in dispute that the supplier of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pounded levy, it is a common knowledge that the duty liability is not dependent upon the actual clearances made by the said unit. That is why, a notification allowing the deemed credit under Rule 57A(6) has been issued. In the absence of reliable evidence being cited by the Department regarding the claim that appropriate duty has not been paid by the said supplying unit, the denial of credit order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that if there was any dispute regarding payment of appropriate duty by the manufacturer of inputs, the Revenue can proceed against the said manufacturer. The said decision stands upheld by the Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana High Court. 7. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the appeal by the Department. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
