TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from respondent, into the treasury by M/s. IOCL, it would be impracticable to deny Cenvat credit to the respondent in respect of the duty paid by it on good faith to M/s. IOCL following the ratio laid down in the case of CCE Vs. MDS Switchgear Ltd. [2008 (8) TMI 37 - SUPREME COURT ] - E/465/2009 - Final Order No. 41643/2015 - Dated:- 27-10-2015 - D. N. Panda, Member (J) For the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tered dealer and the realization by M/s. IOCL was whether deposited by IOCL is not known to record. 3.1 Respondent on the other hand argues that what that is paid by the respondent is expected to have gone into the treasury and in absence of any contrary finding by Revenue showing no payment of duty by Respondent, claim of respondent is undeniable. If M/s. IOCL has not deposited the excess duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... realized from respondent, into the treasury by M/s. IOCL, it would be impracticable to deny Cenvat credit to the respondent in respect of the duty paid by it on good faith to M/s. IOCL following the ratio laid down by Apex Court in the case of CCE Vs. MDS Switchgear Ltd. - 2008 (229) ELT 485 (SC). 6. In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed. ( Dictated and pronounced in open court ) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
