TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by him are a manufacture product and whether duty was rightly charged by the supplier i.e., M/s. Indo Thai Flexible Tubes Ltd. In the present case, it is found that the jurisdictional Commissioner of the said vendor has dropped the entire proceedings which has been duly upheld by the Tribunal as well as the Hon ble High Court. There are no reason to deny the claim of CENVAT Credit in the hands of the Appellant who is the recipient of the impugned goods from the said manufacturer - also, the legal position already stands decided in favor of the Appellant that CENVAT Credit cannot be denied on input on the ground that the activity undertaken by the assessee does not amount to manufacture when the assessee has admittedly deposited output ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itiated by issuance of Show Cause Notice dated 05.05.2010 (SCN) to deny the CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant on the strength of invoices issued by the aforesaid supplier. 2.2 After following the due process of law, the Ld.Commissioner vide the impugned Order dated 15.09.2010 adjudicated the said show-cause notice against which the instant appeal filed by the recipient of goods i.e., the Appellant. 3. Sri N. K Chowdhury, Advocate, appeared for the appellant and Sri J. Chattopadhyay, Ld. Authorised Representative appeared for the Revenue. 4.1 The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submitted that the proceedings initiated against the supplier i.e., M/s. Indo Thai Flexible Tubes Ltd. has already been dropped by the Ld. Commissioner w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner, C. Ex., Kolkata-IV- Final Order No. 76342/2019 dated 06.08.2019 C.C.E. Bangalore-V v. Vishal Precision Steel Tubes Stripes Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (349) E.L.T. 686 (kar) 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue reiterated the finding made by the Ld. Commissioner and prayed that appeal filed by the assessee be rejected being devoid of any merit. 6. We have elaborately heard both sides and have perused the appeal records. 7. We find that the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned Order in Paragraph 4.3 has observed that the goods removed by the consigner is not a manufactured product and therefore, the assessee appellant is not entitled to credit. He has also observed that the assessee availing the credit was under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
