TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... versed the Modvat credit of ₹ 2,47,406/- as per the details given in Show Cause Notice. This fact has not been considered by the CESTAT in proper perspective, while rejecting the Revenue's appeal. On this ground, we set aside the order of the CESTAT dated 03.02.2006 and the matter is remanded to Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal for de novo consideration. - Decided in favour of Revenue. - C M A No.1449 of 2007 , M P No.2 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 9-7-2015 - R. Sudhakar And K. B. K. Vasuki, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr V Sundareswaran, Standing Counsel For the Respondent : None JUDGMENT ( Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. Sudhakar, J.) The Revenue is on appeal as against the order of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from under Rule 57 I of Central Excise Rules, 1944 ; (ii) penalty should not be imposed on them under Rule 173 Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 5. The assessee filed their reply dated 25.05.1999 stating that they had availed modvat credit against the duplicate copies of invoices issued by M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chennai wherein Excise duty had been charged @ 15% advalorem for the furnace oil supplied to them and the payment was also made to them including the excise duty amount; that they had availed modvat credit against the payment of excise duty which was collected from them by the supplier M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Limited and that therefore there was no reason to deny duty credit availed by them. Therefore, the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntention raised and in the light of above referred to decision, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the lower authority and vacating the penalty too. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the Department preferred appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and distinguished the case of R.S.Industries Vs. CCE, New Delhi (supra) that duty had been subsequently recovered from the input-supplier unlike in the instant case and the assessee herein had taken input-duty credit on the strength of invoices issued by input supplier who had themselves availed similar credit on the same goods on the basis of bogus invoices. However, the CESTAT pointed out that there is no dispute of receipt of inputs by the assessee in their fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
