Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Cenvat credit can be denied to the recipient of inputs on the ground that the supplier may have wrongly paid duty and the receiving authority cannot reopen the supplier's classification and duty payment.
Analysis: The process of drawing wire from wire rods was held in another context not to amount to manufacture, but that ruling was confined to the question of manufacture and did not decide the availability of credit where duty had already been paid by the supplier. The deciding factor was that the supplier had paid duty on the goods and the recipient had borne its incidence. In such circumstances, the excise authorities at the recipient's end could not reopen the classification or question the duty payment made by the supplier when the supplier's jurisdictional authority had not set it aside.
Conclusion: Cenvat credit could not be denied to the respondent merely because the supplier may have paid duty wrongly; the appeal of Revenue failed.
Final Conclusion: The order allowing credit was sustained and the Revenue's challenge was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Where duty has been paid by the supplier on inputs and borne by the recipient, the recipient's jurisdictional authorities cannot deny Cenvat credit by independently reopening the supplier's classification or duty payment unless the supplier's assessment has first been disturbed.