9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER The assessee has filed this appeal unde Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, "the Act"), for quashing order dated 1-9-2011, Annexure A.5 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, "the Tribunal") in five appeal Nos. E 619-621/2004, 667-668/2004-SM [2012 (279) E.L.T. 126 (Tri.-Del.)], claiming ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen supplier was duly registered with excise department and working directly under the control of the department and not the appellant? (d) Whether the applicant can be denied the benefit of Modvat when applicant has duly complied the requirement of Notification No. 58/97? 2. Briefly, the facts as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant is a partnership firm e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Excise Rules, 1944 (in short, "the Rules"). Accordingly, show cause notice dated 27-9-1999 was issued to the appellant as to why the availed credit of Rs. 55,410/- be not disallowed and recovered from it along with interest and penalty. The appellant filed reply contesting the demand. The adjudicating authority held that Modvat credit could not be denied on the ground that duty was not payab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Road, Kapurthala) and contended that the issues involved herein stand concluded by the aforesaid decisions, wherein it was held that even if the manufacturer-supplier had not paid Central Excise duty and given a wrong certificate/no certificate on the body of invoices about discharging of its liability, the assessee could not be held liable for the payment of the Central Excise duty on the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the circumstances, the Tribunal was not right and the benefit of discharge of the duty liability by the appellant could not be denied to the appellant in the light of the judgments of this Court in Vikas Pipe's case and M/s. Royal Enterprises's case (supra). 6. In view of the above, the Tribunal was not right in holding that the appellant was liable to pay excise duty. 7. As a result, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
