2006 (2) TMI 454

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "Rule 7(1) The CENVAT credit shall be taken by the manufacturer on the basis of any of the following documents namely : (a)     ......... (b)     a supplementary invoice, issued by a manufacturer or importer of inputs or capital goods in terms of the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002 from his factory or from his depot or from the premises of the consignment agent of the said manufacturer or importer or from any other premises from where the goods are sold by, or on behalf of, the said manufacturer or importer, in case additional amount of excise duties or additional duty of customs leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, has been paid, except where the additional amount of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cable to misdeclared freight in regard to the imports of finished goods. No penalty was imposed even in regard to duty short levied on the imported finished goods. Total immunity was allowed from penalty and interest in regard to the differential duty on inputs imported. The appellant discharged the duty liability as ordered by the Settlement Commission and obtained the certificates/supplementary invoices showing the payment of differential duty and with this document, the appellant approached vide letter dt. 23-8-02 the Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida claiming Cenvat credit equivalent to the duty paid on the inputs. Another communication was also sent on 3-10-02 to the same effect. Finally under letter dt. 10-8-02 it informed the Com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....C.)] = (1987) 168 ITR 705 in support of that contention. He has also relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Essel Propack Ltd. v. CCE, Thane reported in 2004 (167) E.L.T. 547 in support of the contention that a finding on the question of suppression of facts etc. could be made only by an adjudicating authority having jurisdiction over the manufacturer who receives the inputs. 6. Ld. DR has relied on the findings of the Commissioner and has also emphasized that the SCN issued had clearly brought out the suppression of facts by the appellant. It is his contention that provision contained in Rule 7(1)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules is clearly attracted. 7. A perusal of the instant Rule makes it clear that denial of....