TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (3) TMI 547 - CESTAT BANGALORE] wherein it has been held that when the supplier of inputs paid duty thereon and issued a valid invoice and the inputs so received in assessee's factory were used in the manufacture of final products, then the assessee is entitled to take credit of the duty paid on inputs and the question whether inputs had arisen out of process of manufacturer is irrelevant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/20313/2018-SM - Final Oder No. 20684/2018 - Dated:- 23-4-2018 - Mr. S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri Gaurav Shah, CA- For the Appellant Shri Pakshirajan, Asst. Commissioner(AR)- For the Respondent Order Per : S.S GARG The present appeal is directed agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Rule 14 of the CCR, along with interest. The notice also proposed to impose penalty on appellant under Rule 15(2) of the CCR. The lower authority vide impugned order confirmed the entire demand along with interest and also imposed equivalent penalty under Section 11AC(1)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who rejected the same. Hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused records. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) has not consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed period of limitation, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no intent to evade payment of duty and therefore the entire demand is barred by limitation. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of material on record, I find that the same Commissioner in the case of M/S. Universal Products decided on 11/12/2017 allowed the appeal of the assessee by relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Rajkot vs. Advance Diesel Engines Ltd. [2012(278) ELT 491 (Tri.)]. The said decision has been placed on record and it is pertinent to reproduce paras 10, 11 12 of the said decision, which are reproduced below:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cipient end and hence the duty paid nature is not disputed and received under a valid document, the appellant cannot be expected to examine the legal disputes of the supplier. Therefore by following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Advance Diesel Engines Ltd. as well as CCE Vs. Deepthi Formulations Pvt. Ltd. [2012(286) ELT 396 (Tri. Bang.)] wherein it has been held that when the supplier of inputs paid duty thereon and issued a valid invoice and the inputs so received in assessee's factory were used in the manufacture of final products, then the assessee is entitled to take credit of the duty paid on inputs and the question whether inputs had arisen out of process of manufacturer is irrelevant. Therefore by following the rati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
