2015 (3) TMI 379

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a, DR ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa: The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of white cement and putty. During March, 2003 to August 2003, they availed CENVAT credit of Rs. 28,356/- (Rupees twenty eight thousand three hundred and fifty six only) on the basis of four invoices issued by M/s. Rishabhdev Techno Cables Ltd., a manufacturer located in Daman. 2. Investigations revealed that the sai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... voices, giving all the details, including duty payment particulars. The inputs were received by the appellants, who took the credit based upon the declaration made by the manufacturer. The question which arise as to when the manufacturer has given wrong declaration as regards duty payments in the invoices raised by them, whether the credit can be denied to the input recipient or the Revenue's .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n. Admittedly, the appellants had taken the credit by reflecting the same in their records. When the invoices received by them are showing duty payment, the input recipient cannot be expected to know that the manufacturer has not actually discharged the duty burden. Accordingly, I hold that the demand is also barred by limitation. 7. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order and allow .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X