TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ementary invoices issued by manufacturer factory from where the goods are sold by, or on behalf of the said manufacturer. In the present case, admittedly, there is no sale of goods but It is inter unit transfer of stock. It is seen that Unit-1 transferred the goods to their Unit-2. I find that this issue is settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Jairaj Ispat (2008 (2) TMI 440 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH). - Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Jairaj Inspat Limited (supra), I set-aside the impugned orders - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal Nos. E/558-560/2009 - - - Dated:- 5-1-2015 - P K Das, Member (J),J. For the Appellant : S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upheld adjudication order. 3. Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that there is no dispute that it is a case of inter-unit transfer of stock of the same Company. Therefore, allegation of suppression, fraud or mis-declaration etc. under the provisions of Rule 9(1) of the said Rules cannot be sustained. He relied upon various decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts and Tribunals as under:- (a) CCE, Hyderabad vs. Jairaj Ispat Limited - 2009 (245) ELT 118 (AP) (b) Ispat Industries Limited vs. CCE, Raigad - 2008 (221) ELT 540 (Tri. Mumbai) (c) Mahindra Mahindra Limited (T.D.) vs. CCE, Mumbai - 2006 (202) ELT 509 (Tri. Mumbai) (d) Essar Oil Limited vs. CCE, Rajkot - 2014 (303) ELT 255 (Tri. Ahmd.) 4. On the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the case may be, on the basis of any of the following documents, namely:- (a)................ (b) a supplementary invoice, issued by a manufacturer or importer of inputs or capital goods n terms of the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002 from his factory or depot or from the premises of the consignment agent of the said manufacturer or importer or from any other premises from where the goods are sold by, or on behalf of, the said manufacturer or importer/in case of additional amount of excise duties or additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, has been paid, except where the additional amount of duty became recoverable from the manufacturer or importer of inputs or capital goods on account of any non ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /w Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. In this regard, the Tribunal relied upon the ratio in the above citation, wherein it was held that in the case of stock transfer, prohibition under Rule 7(1)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules is not applicable even if additional amount of duty becomes recoverable from one unit on account of fraud, suppression of fact etc. Having regard to the observations by the tribunal and the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any substantial question of law raised in this appeal and in view of the failure to show that the respondent-company has involved in any fraud or suppression of facts, we have no hesitation to hold that the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality or infirmi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
