TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (11) TMI 62
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tial questions of law : a) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding that the claim of the assessee for availment of Modvat / Cenvat credit on the goods which were never received by the assessee in their factory ? b) Whether the extended period of limitation for issue of showcause notice can be invoked when the goods received by the assessee are different than the goods shown in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not be imposed. 4. By an orderinoriginal dated 2662002 the assessing officer confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty of the equivalent amount. Onfurther appeal, the CESTAT by the impugned order dated 1832005 set aside the demand and penalty. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present appeal is filed. 5. The entire case of the Revenue is based on the fact that there were discrepancies in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y paying the duty. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, credit of duty paid on inputs could not be denied solely on the ground that there is dome discrepancy in the thickness of the inputs, especially when the purchase documents did not refer to the thickness of the inputs and the thickness was not the relevant criteria for payment of duty on the inputs in question. 6. In these circumstan....