TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial) These two appeals filed by the appellant and one filed by Revenue are being disposed off by a common order, as they arise out of a same impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Duty of ₹ 8,41,394/- and ₹ 38,84,590/- are confirmed against the appellants, by denying the benefit of modvat credit of duty paid by the input supplier on the ground that at the time of fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f CCE Chennai Vs. CEGAT Chennai 2006 (202) ELT 753 (Mad.), CCE Vs. Jyoti Ltd. 2008 (223) ELT 171 (Guj.), Evergreen Engineering Co. P. Ltd. Vs. CCE Mumbai 2007 (215) ELT 134 (Tri-Mumbai). 3. The ratio of all these decisions is that the credit cannot be varied at recipients end on the ground that the supplier should have been paid lesser duty. We, accordingly, are of the view that denial of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t setting aside duty under Section 11AC is indicative of the fact that extended period is not invocable in as much as there was no malafide on the part of the appellant. As such, we hold that the demand is also barred by limitation. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow both the appeals filed by the assessee with consequential relief to them. 6. Revenue s appeal is against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
