9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T Per Archana Wadhwa : After hearing both the sides, I find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts. A part of demand to the extent of Rs.1,56,275/- and of Rs.61,422/- stands confirmed against the appellant by denying the Cenvat credit of duty availed by them in respect of already cleared and rejected goods by their customers M/s Tata Motors, in terms of Rule 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere fact of non availability of the transportation evidence, will not result in denial of the credit, which is otherwise admissible to the appellant in terms of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules. Accordingly, I set aside the said part of the impugned order and allow the credit to be availed by the assessee. 3. Further the appellants are also supplying the motor vehicle parts to M/s Ashok Leyland. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been filed instead of suo moto availing the credit. 5. The appellants have challenged the said confirmation of demand of Rs.1,87,174/- on the point of limitation, inasmuch as the Show Cause Notice was issued on 8.3.2010. By drawing my attention to the Show Cause Notice, ld. Advocate submits that the said demand stands raised on the scrutiny of the appellant's statutory documents itself, which sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
