2013 (1) TMI 462

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of total CENVAT credit of Rs.3,33,987/- denied to them for the period from December 2007 to February 2010 and equal amount of penalty imposed on them. There is no representation for the applicant despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. I have perused the records and heard the Superintendent (AR). 2. The above CENVAT credit was denied to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... entious ground is concerned, it appears to be purely procedural. It is not in dispute that BOFS covered by the invoices raised on the appellant's Head Office was actually used by the appellant in the manufacture and clearance of their final products. The tax-paid nature of BOFS is also not in dispute. The department has no case that any part of BOFS covered by any given invoice was diverted by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X