9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x on the basis of TR-6 Challans prior to 16-06-2005 as TR-6 challans was included as a specified document vide Notification No. 28/2005-CE (NT) dated 07.06.2005 with effect from 16-06-2005 " 2. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Motor vehicles falling under sub-heading No. 870290.99 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are availing facilities of Cenvat Credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods and on the input services under Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The assessee, during the period from January, 2005 to 15th June 2005 have availled inadmissible service tax credit of (1) Rs. 1,35,152/- and Education Cess Rs. 2,649/-, (2) Rs. 4,04,001/- and Education Cess Rs. 8,021/- respectively on Goods Trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. On appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order-in-original and rejected the appeals. The assessee persuaded the matter before the Tribunal, which, by its order dt. 28.02.2008 allowed the appeals and hence, the present appeals by the Department. 4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials made available on record. 5. The core issue involved in these appeals is whether the assessee was entitled to avail credit of service tax on the basis of TR-6 challans prior to 16.06.2005 as TR-6 challan was included as a specified document vide Notification No. 28/2005-CE(NT) dated 07.06.2005 with effect from 16.06.2005. 6. The aforesaid issue involved in these appeals, is no more re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of National Organics Chemical India Ltd. reported in 2004 (178) E.L.T. 331 (Tribunal). The appellant's case is squarely covered by this judgment. I, therefore, hold that disallowance of Cenvat credit is not correct. Consequently, interest and penalty also do not sustain. Order-in-Original is liable to be set aside. " 4. Revenue in the Memo of appeal has again reiterated the same stand. Shri Prakash Shah, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents submit that during the relevant time there was no list of specified documents on the basis of which credit could be taken. I have also heard Shri.C.S. Biradar and Shri.S.R. Savant appearing for other appellants. As such, the Appellate authority was right in holding TR-6 challa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... son India Ltd., reported in 2006 (202) E.L.T. 759 (P &H) held that if the duty paid has the character of inputs and their receipt in manufacturer's factory and utilization in manufacture of final product is not disputed, then the credit cannot be denied to such person. It is also to be noted that the Department's Circular dated 19th November, 2001 observes that once the duty payment is not disputed and it is found that the documents are genuine and not fraudulent, then the manufacturer would be entitled to CENVAT credit on duty paid inputs. 9. In the present case, the authorities below have accepted that the respondents are entitled to such CENVAT Credit. The only point for consideration, in such circumstances is the type of docu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
