TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 563
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....N. Srivastava, DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots classifiable under Sub­-heading No. 7206.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants were availing Cenvat credit facility. They purchased three consignments from M/s. Maheshwari Udyog, Visakhapatnam un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby adjudication order was set aside. Hence, the appellants filed this appeal. 2. Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that there is no dispute that the goods were received by M/s. Maheswari Udyog directly from the manufacturer M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. and issued the invoice as registered dealer. He further submits that original autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e learned Advocate is not applicable on the ground that in the said case manufacturer's invoice indicates dealer's as well as assessee's names. 4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the original authority observed that Maheswari Udyog had directly received the goods from manufacturer but purchased the same from A.S. Traders, Visakhapatnam. For the purpose of pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el Traders, who are not registered with the department Maheswari Udyog does not attain the stage of second stage dealer and, therefore, invoice issued by Maheswari Udyog is invalid document. It is seen that the Superintendent of Central Excise in this respect stated that Maheswari Udyog directly received the goods from manufacturer under the cover of proper duty paying documents. There is no dispu....