TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nufacturer - credit allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - E/28215/2013 - A/30439/2017 - Dated:- 15-3-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Sh. P.C. Anand, Consultant for the Appellant Sh. P.S. Reddy, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER [Order Per Sulekha Beevi, C. S.] 1. The above appeal is filed by appellant being aggrieved by the disallowance of credit on inputs. 2. The appellants are manufactures of Medicaments and are registered with the Central Excise Department on their own account and also on account of certain loan licensee. It was noticed by the Department that the appellants have availed CENVAT credit on two invoices consigned to the appellants but issued in favor of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the receipt of goods in the appellant's factory as well as use of such goods in the manufacture of final products, the Department cannot deny the credit merely stating that M/s Wanbury did not have a loan licencee. Further, the invoices clearly show that the goods have been consigned to the appellant. The Ld. Consultant relied upon the judgments in the following cases: i. CC CE, Mumbai Vs. Pharmacom Remedies (P) Ltd., [2003 (156) ELT 934 (Tri. Mumbai)] ii. CCE, Ahmedabad-III Vs. Preet Pharma Pvt. Ltd., [2009 (245) ELT 284 (Tri. - Ahmd.)] iii. Universal Medicare Ltd., Vs. CCE, Goa [2003 (159) ELT 802 (Tri. - Mumbai)] iv. Rallis India Ltd., Vs. CCE, Aurangabad [2004 (178) ELT 716 (Tri. Mumbai)] v. Crop Health ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . They had taken credit on the strength of two invoices which showed the loan licensee as the consignee, and not the appellants. Queries were raised and the assessee explained to the jurisdictional officers that normally the goods were received from the supplier on the invoices showing both the names of the licensee and the manufacturer. In these two cases, by mistake, only the name of the loan licensee was shown. In spite of this explanation, a show cause notice was issued seeking recovery of the amount referred to above. Deputy Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed the penalty, in doing so he cited certain case laws. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order citing other case law. 3. Sh. Mehta, Ld. Advocate for the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
