TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng documents of inputs. There were no need for reassessment of inputs at the end of input receiver. Therefore, the question of overvaluation of inputs does not arise. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL Nos.E/70068-70070/2016-EX[DB] - A/70924-70926/2018-EX[DB] - Dated:- 11-4-2018 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Anurag Mishra Ms Pragya Pandey (Advocate) for Appellants Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Joint Commissioner (AR), for Respondent Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The above stated three appeals are arising out of a common Order-in-Original No. 11/COMMISSIONER/NOIDA-II/2015-16 dated 30/09/2015 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida-I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants were also called upon to show cause, as to why penalty should not be imposed on them in terms of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. M/s Saini Alloys Pvt. Ltd. submitted their reply to the said show cause notice which was received in the office of the Original Authority on 22.12.2014. They submitted before the Original Authority that they manufactured M.S. Ingots as well as Alloy Steel Castings and therefore they required higher quality scrap for manufacture of Alloy Steel Castings and they require ordinary quality scrap for manufacture of M.S. Ingots. They further submitted that the said show cause notice was based on assumptions and presumptions arrived on the basis of various speculations. They further submitted that the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncing payment of duty as provided under Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. There was no dispute on receipt of the said inputs by the appellant. The only issue raised by Revenue was about valuation of inputs at the end of the receiver of inputs. He further submitted that the question about the assessment of the received inputs at the end of the input receiver is not sustainable in law. He has submitted that his case is squarely covered by the ruling of Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur Vs M/s Juhi Alloys Ltd. reported at 2014 (302) ELT 487 (All). He has further submitted that in the present case it is not disputed that the appellant has not received the inputs on which Central Excise duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the appellant has availed more Cenvat credit than that was stated in the duty paying documents of inputs. Therefore, relying on the ruling of Hon ble Allahabad High Court of Allahabad in the case of M/s Juhi Alloys (supra), we find that the only issue raised by Revenue was about valuation aspects of inputs of the end of the receiver of inputs, that is M/s Saini Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and hold that there were no need for reassessment of inputs at the end of input receiver. Therefore, the question of overvaluation of inputs does not arise. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow all the appeals filed by the appellants. The appellants shall be entitled to consequential relief, as pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
