TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 990X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is no dispute that the amount paid by the manufacturer on capital goods sent to the job worker, was duty. As a consequence, a recipient of the goods was entitled to avail the duty paid as credit. However, the entitlement under Rule 4(5)(a) is restricted only to a period of 180 days. Since the job worker did not return it within the period stipulated, the manufacturer reversed the Cenvat credit a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the appellant/Department and Mr.S.Muthuvenkataraman, learned counsel for the respondents/assessees. 3. The respondent in CMA No.2128 of 2010 is a company to whom the respondent in the other appeal entrusted certain jobs on job work basis. The manufacturer, who is the respondent in the other appeal, sent capital goods to the job worker (respondent in the first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent is on appeal before us. 7. The appeal is admitted on the following questions of law: (i) Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT, Chennai was correct in setting aside the impugned order of the original adjudicating authority without considering the irregular credit taken by the first respondent (M/s. SPIPL) based on invalid invoices as against the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules and without c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 8. Even on admitted facts, the fact remains that duty has been paid and the Cenvat Credit is claimed only once. Therefore, the twin components that are required to be satisfied are satisfied in this case. Hence, we find nothing wrong with the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the questions of law are liable to be answered in favour of the respondents. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
