9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ER The facts leading to this appeal by the department are, in brief, as under. 1.1 The respondent are manufacturers of rough steel forgings chargeable to Central Excise duty. One of their input is furnace oil. On 31-10-2005, the respondent took Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 66,533/- on the basis of an invoice No. 62 dated 31-10-2005 in respect of furnace oil. However, furnace oil had not been r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est and imposed penalty of equal amount on the respondent holding that the respondent could not avail Cenvat credit on the date on which the same had been availed, as on these dates the inputs had not been received in their factory. On appeal to Commissioner (Appeals), the above order of the Assistant Commissioner was modified vide order-in-appeal dated 28-10-2010. The Commissioner (Appeals) while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered the submissions of learned DR and have perused the records. 4. The only ground on which the Cenvat credit had been denied is that on the dates on which the credit had been taken, the goods had not been received. However, it is not disputed that the goods had subsequently been received, as the goods covered by the invoice No. 62, dated 31-10-2005 on the basis of which the credit was taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
