9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - The appellant filed this appeal against denial of Deemed Credit during the period from 25-9-97 to 4-8-98 under Notification No. 58/97-C.E. dated 30-8-97. A show cause notice dated 11-5-99 was issued to the appellant (i.e. receiver of the inputs) and the supplier of the inputs proposing to deny the Deemed Credit on the ground that the appellant actually received the Malleable Scrap of Steel inste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in 2007 (218) E.L.T. 488 (S.C.). He also relied upon the decisions of the Tribunal as under: (a) Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana v. Pawan Ispat Udyog - 2007 (213) E.L.T. 134 (Tribunal-Delhi) (b) Hitesh Silicate Industries v. CCE, Jaipur - 2002 (150) E.L.T. 89 (Tribunal-Delhi). 3. Ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate of 12% of the price as declared by the manufacturer, in the invoice accompanying the said inputs and credit of the deemed duty. Clause 5 of the said Notification provides that the provisions of this Notification shall not apply to inputs, where the manufacturer of the said inputs has not declared the invoice price of the said inputs correctly in the documents at the time of their clearance fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the recipient of inputs (i.e. the appellants) is not sustainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarvesh Refractories (P) Ltd. (supra) held that the change of classification of the goods, at buyer's end is not permissible. The Tribunal in the case of Pawan Ispat Udyog (supra) allowed the credit because no proceeding was initiated against the manufacturer, of inputs regarding misdeclara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
