TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 872X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be denied by his Jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities by seeking to review the assessment at the end of the supplier [Apex Court’s judgment in the case of CCE vs. MDS Switchgear Ltd. reported in {2008 (8) TMI 37 - SUPREME COURT }]. In view of this, the impugned order does not appear to be correct and, as such, the appellant have a strong prima facie case in their favour. The requirement of pre-deposit of Cenvat credit demand, interest and penalty is, therefore, waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery thereof is stayed till the disposal of the appeal - Stay granted. - Appeal No. 3921 of 2012 (SM) - Stay Order No. 55352/2013 - Dated:- 4-1-2013 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, J. For the Appellant: Shri Alok Barthwal, Advocate F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the only ground on which the Cenvat credit has been denied to the appellant, is that the activity of M/s Tata Ryersons of cutting the CR coils into CR sheets does not amount to manufacture, that Calcutta Bench of this Tribunal vide final order No. A-614-615/2006 dated 10/7/06 has held that when the department has collected the duty from M/s Tata Ryersons in respect of their activity of cutting of CR coils by treating the same as manufacture, the department subsequently cannot deny the Cenvat credit to them in respect of the inputs on the ground that the activity did not amount to manufacture, that when the Cenvat credit has been allowed to M/s Tata Ryersons in respect of their inputs by treati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s is not central excise duty. Prima facie, I find that there is no evidence that the assessment of duty at the end of M/s Tata Ryersons has been reviewed. It is well settled law that Cenvat credit to a manufacturer in respect of certain inputs received by him cannot be denied by his Jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities by seeking to review the assessment at the end of the supplier [Apex Court s judgment in the case of CCE vs. MDS Switchgear Ltd. reported in 2008 (229) E.L.T. 485 (S.C.)]. In view of this, the impugned order does not appear to be correct and, as such, the appellant have a strong prima facie case in their favour. The requirement of pre-deposit of Cenvat credit demand, interest and penalty is, therefore, waived for hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
