TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t order-in-original No. 32-33/D-1/2009 dated 30/11/2009 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of wires and cables. They are availing Cenvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of their final product. They have received inputs 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 comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed against the supplier of the said inputs for denial of concession under Notification 56/2002-CE/ 100% of EOU cannot be a legal reason for denying the credit to the appellants. The appellant filed complete account confirming payments having already been made by them to M/s Satya Metals for 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The learned Commissioner in his discussion and findings observes that duty has not been discharged by M/s Satya Metals, Jammu and invoices issued by M/s Ail India Metal Traders, Delhi dealer of M/s Satya Metals, Jammu is not eligible for credit for the appellants. Strangely, learned Commissioner 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. Ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Tribunal's decision in R.S. Industries vs. CCE, New Delhi - I reported in 2003 (153) E.L.T. 114 (Tri. - Del.). The Tribunal held that as far as appellants are concerned there was neither any error nor any misconstruction on their part. The show cause notice can be issued only to person 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
