TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recipient would be entitled to the credit of the duty so paid by the input manufacturer and rightly set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi-III Commissionerate, Gurgaon, for recovery of inadmissible Cenvat Credit of Rs.43,55,22,721/- alongwith interest (Annexure A-7). No substantial question of law arises for consideration. The present appeal is dismissed. - HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI And HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Amrinder Singh, Advocate for the respondent ORDER Ritu Bahri, J. 1. The revenue has come up in appeal against the order dated 21.08.2014 (Annexure A-1) passed by Customs, Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as that even if input supplier was not required to pay any duty and it was actually paid by the input supplier, would the recipient i.e. assessee would be entitled to credit of the same? The assessee had availed the benefit of Cenvat credit of Rs. Rs.43,55,22,721- for the period December, 2004 to March, 2012 and this amount was sought to be recovered by issuing show cause notices under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. Reference at this stage can be made to the decision given by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Faridabad Iron Steel Traders Association vs. Union of India 2003 SCC OnLine Del 1300, decided on 21.11.2003. The Division Bench was examini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cepts the declaration and duty, then can the Cenvat credit be given to the purchaser who otherwise fulfills all the conditions for availing Cenvat credit? 7. In the present case, pursuant to order dated 26.09.2017 passed by this Court, following circulars of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, New Delhi were placed on record:- 1. Circular No. 811/8/2005-CX dated 02.03.2005 whereby circular dated 07.09.2001 has been withdrawn, 2. Circular No. 584/21/2001-CX dated 07.09.2001 which has been set aside by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. 3. Other clarificatory circular No. 927/17/2010-CX dated 24.06.2010 wherein again it has been clarified that pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing No. 7318 and 7211 of the first schedule appended to the Act. The assessee could not have got the classification of the goods changed. The fact that the duty was paid on those inputs is evident from the invoices indicating the payment of duty for which credit has been taken. It appears that the goods were manufactured prior to 2-3-2005 and the circular dated 2-3-2005 was not to apply in any case. The view taken by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting admission of the appeal because no question of law would arise. The matter seems to be covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sarvesh Refractories (P) Ltd. (Supra). There is, thus no merit in the appeal. Dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
