2009 (12) TMI 804

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ched the Tribunal and Tribunal in the case of BOC India Ltd. v. CCE, Jamshedpur as reported in 2005 (183) E.L.T. 475 (Tri.-Kolkata), held that such charges are not includible in the assessable value. Admittedly, the department has filed an appeal against this decision as per Letter F. No. IV/16-21/MP/2007, dated 14-3-07 of CCE, Ahmedabad II. In the meanwhile, proceedings were initiated against the appellant to deny the benefit of Cenvat credit availed by them in respect of duty paid on tank facility charges and two show cause notices were issued and admittedly one out of which has been issued beyond the period of one year. The show cause notices have culminated into the impugned orders whereby the duty demand with interest equal to the Cenv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....action that has to be taken should have been taken at the supplier's end only and therefore the show cause notice itself was not to be issued. Further, he also relies on the decision of the Tribunal in case of Shreemal Silk Mills v. CCE Surat as reported in 2009 (236) E.L.T. 592 (Tri.-Ahmd.) in support of his contention that the duty demand has not been confirmed against the appellant under Section 11A (2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and therefore confirmation of demand is itself without jurisdiction. 4. Learned SDR, on the other hand, submits that credit has been denied on the ground that tank facility charges are nothing but in fact are costly equipments and what is collected is rental charges and therefore the credit availed by the appe....