TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orrectly availed the credit and the demand on reversal of credit is not sustainable. Consequently, the imposition of equal penalty on the main appellant and imposition of penalty on M/s.Guwahati Carbon Ltd. and M/s. Brahmaputra Carbon Ltd. under Rule 13 of CCR does not survive and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.E/636/2009, Appeal No. E/82/2010, Appeal No.E/83/2010 - Final Order No.40444-40446/2015 - Dated:- 24-4-2015 - Hon ble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member,J. For the Appellants : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri M. Rammohan Rao, DC (AR) ORDER As the issue involved in these appeals is common, all these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir invoices and further held that appellant-manufacturer have availed excess credit on the freight and insurance which was included in the transaction value by relying on Commissioner (Appeals) order dt. 15.6.2005 passed in respect of two suppliers (appellant No.2 3 herein). On appeal by the appellants, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected their appeals and upheld OIO by relying on the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE Shillong Vs Guwahati Carbon Another reported in 2009 (93) RLT 353 (CESTAT-KOL). Hence the present appeals. 3. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submit that they have complied with substantive conditions for availing cenvat credit as per Rule 3, 4 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. They h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue was dismissed by the Tribunal and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order. He further submits that Tribunal s order was upheld by Hon ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. He also relied Board s circular dt. 17.11.2008. He submits that the appellants as well as the suppliers are not liable for any penalty. Regarding Appellants 2 3, he submits that both the adjudicating authority and appellate authority decided the case exparte without following the principles of natural justice. The adjudicating authority has no jurisdiction to impose penalty on suppliers of inputs. He also relied on the other case laws :- 1) CCE Kolkata Vs ITC Ltd. 2013 (291) ELT 377 (T-Kol.) 2) CCE Chandigarh Vs Punjab Tractors Ltd. 2010 (259) ELT 123 (T.-Del. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following cases. In the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs CCE Allahabad (supra), and in the case of CCE Jalandar Vs DCM Engineering Products (supra) wherein the identical demands on the reversal of cenvat credit availed on the input invoices on the goods supplied by M/s.Gowhati Carbon Ltd. and Brahamaptra Carbon Ltd. . The relevant portion of the Tribunal s order in Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs CCE Allahabad is reproduced as under :- 7. As is seen from the above, the identical issue between the same input suppliers was the subject matter of Tribunal's decision, which stand upheld by Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court. As such we fully agree with the ld. Advocate that the issue stand exclusively decided by the above referred de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. [2006] 203 ELT 213 and CCE v. Swaraj Automotives ltd. [2002] 139 ELT 504 and judgment of Madras High Court in CCE v CEGAT, Chennai [2006] 202 ELT 753 and also circular issued by the Central Board of Excise Customs, New Delhi being Circular No.877/15/2008-CX., dated 17.11.2008 to submit that credit could be availed to the extent of duty paid. 6. Since the view taken by the Tribunal is consistent with the view taken earlier by this Court, the questions proposed cannot be held to be substantial questions of law 6. As the issue is identical and the input suppliers are also same, the ratio of the above Hon'ble High Court order is applicable to the facts of the present case. By respectfully following the ratio of the decisions r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
