9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. ORDER These are two appeals, one filed by M/s. Hindustan Zinc Limited (appeal No. E/1144 of 2006) and second by the Revenue (appeal No. E/467 of 2006) against common order-in-appeal No. 830 (HKS)/CE/JPR-II/2005 dated 25th November 2005. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the scrutiny of the records of the assessee i.e. M/s. Hindustan Zinc Limited for the month of January ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment that there is a short-payment of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 42,89,220/- against the clearances of zinc, lead and other products during the month of January 2004 by way of utilizing the inadmissible Cenvat credit. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 3rd September, 2004 which was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner vide his order-in-original No. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit after the supplementary invoices issued by the assessees in favour of the recipient of the goods. He submitted that the issue has already been decided by this Tribunal vide CESTAT Order No. 945-946/2011-EX., dated 4th November 2011 in their own case in which it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal that there is no reason to deny the Cenvat credit of pre-deposit of the duty paid under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it of duty paid under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act can be availed and the demand confirmed on this account is not sustainable. Following the decision of this Tribunal cited (supra), we set aside the impugned order and hold that the Cenvat credit of the pre-deposit made under Section 35F of Central Excise Act is admissible to the appellant. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
