9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 946X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand notice dated 7-6-2006 alleging availment of irregular credit of Rs. 2,18,654.77 on the packing material received from the input supplier mainly Supreme Industries Ltd. which were old and recycled one but not new one. The said demand has been confirmed and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. The respondent filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal). The ld. Commissioner (Appeal) allowed the appeal of the respondent by setting aside the impugned order-in-original. Hence the Revenue is in appeal. 3. The ld. AR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the grounds of Appeal. He has submitted that the respondent had purchased from the input supplier viz. M/s. Supreme Industries Ltd., the front cover and back cover of T.V. ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... namely the respondent. They have submitted that whatever duty shown on the invoices of the input viz. front cabinet and back cabinet includes the value of packing and they availed the credit on the said duty. In support of their submission they have relied on the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. M/s. Aggarwal Iron Industries - 2005 (184) E.L.T. 397 (Tri.-Del.) and CCE v. M/s. Anand Arc Electronics Pvt. Ltd. - 2010 (252) E.L.T. 411 (T). 5. Heard the ld. AR and perused the records. 6. I find that the Revenue has filed this appeal against ld. Commissioner (Appeals) order on the ground that the input supplier M/s. Supreme Industries Ltd. has used the packing material repeatedly instead of supplying the new packing materials alo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed packing box from the market and packed FC and BC in it for supplying to the appellants, there would not have been any question. Analogically the matter is same in the instant case so far the question of taking Modvat credit is concerned. I do not find on record that the supplier and recipient are related to each other so to fetch the question of flow back of consideration. Hence the sales being at arm's length and on contract value, there should not arise any contradiction over valuation on the supplier's side. Since there is no allegation or variation of duty paid by the supplier, I observe that the case laws cited are applicable to the instant case. Accordingly, I do not find any logic behind the allegations of the department. The Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
