9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts from M/s Satya Metals, Jammu and also from M/s All India Metal Traders, Delhi who is a registered dealer and who supplied the inputs manufactured by M/s Satya Metals, Jammu. Officers of Central Excise, Jammu Commissionerate conducted certain inquiries regarding the eligibility of M/s Satya Metals for the concession under Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14/11/2002 and correctness of duty payment to the DTA clearance by the said firm which is a 100% EOU. A communication dated 30/07/2008 was sent by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Jammu to the Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi - I stating that the self-credit availed by M/s Satya Metals was used for payment of duty for their clearance to DTA and such payment using self-cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r copper wire purchased from them. The credit availed by them has been in strict compliance of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Learned Counsel stated that the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi has no jurisdiction over the supplier of inputs and has absolutely no authority to decide the eligibility or otherwise of the supplier for certain concessions claimed by them (supplier). Any dispute being raised by the officers of Central Excise, Jammu communicated over a letter to the Jurisdictional Delhi Commissioner cannot be the reason for recovery of Cenvat credit taken by the appellant validly. Learned Counsel submitted it is also relevant that the correctness of self-credit availed by the supplier in terms of Notification No. 56/2002-CE has not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner relied on Tribunal's order in the case of Bengal Hammer Industries (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Kolkata - II reported in 2009 (240) E.L.T. 257 (Tri.-Kolkata) which deals with credit availability on forged/fake document. We are not able to appreciate the relevance of that case law to the present proceedings. The learned Commissioner further observes that the credit availed by the appellant is clearly in violation of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Again the relevance of provision of Rule 3 to the present proceedings are not clear. We find that the learned Commissioner first decided, without any jurisdiction, on the non-payment of duty by M/s Satya Metals, Jammu and there upon proceeded to deny the credit of such duty availed by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on who committed any error or fraud and not for another person's act. The said decision of Tribunal has been approved by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Similar view on the responsibility of the recipient input was taken by the Tribunal in S.K. Foils Ltd. vs. CCE, Rohtak reported in 2015 (315) E.L.T. 258 (Tri. - Del.). The Tribunal in that citing and relying on earlier decisions held in the absence of any dispute about the receipt of inputs under the cover of the invoices issued by the supplier carrying duty payment details, credit availed by the recipients cannot be denied. 6. Considering the above discussion, we find the impugned order is not legally sustainable. We accordingly set aside the same and allow the appeals. (Operative part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
