TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1683X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessee. - Appeal No : E/329/2010, Application No : E/ROA/10195/2015 - Order No. A/10945/2015 - Dated:- 5-6-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, J. For The Appellant : Shri Dhaval Shah, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Jitendra Nair, Authorised Representative Per: P.K. Das The applicant filed this application for Restoration of the Appeal dismissed by Order No. A/10179/2015 dated 19.02.2014 for non- prosecution. 2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the application, I find that there is a sufficient reason for recalling the order dated 19.02.2015. Accordingly, the order dated 19.02.2015 is recalled and the appeal is restored in its original number. Upon consent of the parties, the appeal is taken upon for hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the department that the goods were not received at all. We find that in this case the credit is proposed to be denied only on the ground that M/s. Darmin Steel Suppliers had issued their own delivery challan and invoice and received payment. We find that Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides that cenvat credit shall be taken on an invoice issued by a 1st or 2nd stage dealer. In this case credit has been taken on the basis of invoice issued by the 1st/2nd stage dealer only. The invoice also shows the name and address of the appellant as consignee. Further as required under Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, the invoice also contains all the details such as duty payable, description of the goods, assessable value, central excise regis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bills have been raised. Since there is no evidence to show that inputs have not been received and in all the cases invoices issued by the 1st/2nd stage dealer show the name of the appellant as consignee and credit has been taken on that basis. We find that the impugned order is not sustainable and accordingly set aside the same and allow the appeal. 4. The Learned Advocate submits that the above decision was upheld by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II vs Transformers Rectifiers (India) Ltd 2012 (281) E.L.T 670 (Guj.). 5. In view of the above discussions and following the decision of the Tribunal in the appellant s own case, which is upheld by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
