TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 253
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acturers/suppliers of the inputs. For instance, in Appeal No. E/1407/2007 filed by one of the assessees, the challenge is against denial of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs 1,52,84,200/- on inputs manufactured and supplied by their sister units. The sister units at Bangalore and Kurkumbh manufactured bulk drugs and stock-transferred the same, on payment of Central Excise duty, to the assessee s factory at Patalganga where CENVAT credit of the said duty was availed by the assessee and utilized for payment of duty on the medicinal formulations (final product) manufactured out of the bulk drugs (inputs). The payment of duty on the bulk drugs by the units at Bangalore and Kurkumbh was based on provisional assessment. When the provisional assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner against certain other units of M/s Cipla Ltd also on similar sets of facts. Hence the appeals of M/s Cipla Ltd. 2. Appeal No. E/1412/07 was filed by a functionary of the company against the penalty imposed on him. 3. Appeal No E/1045/08 filed by the other assessee viz M/s Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd (M/s MSPL) is against denial of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs 42,194/- by the lower authorities and against equal amount of penalty imposed by them. The assessee had taken CENVAT credit of Rs 42,1924/- on their input supplied by M/s Cipla Ltd who had paid the said amount of duty on the goods provisionally assessed under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. When the provisional assessment was finalized by the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provisionally paid by M/s Cipla Ltd under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules. When their provisional assessments were finalized by the proper officer of Central Excise, it was found that the amount of duty paid by them was higher than what was leviable on the goods cleared to M/s MSPL. Subsequently, in a show-cause notice issued to M/s MSPL, the department sought to recover the differential amount of duty (difference between the amount of duty paid by the input manufacturer on the basis of provisional assessment and the amount of duty payable as per final assessment) which was allegedly taken in excess of the credit they were entitled to. Apart from demand of interest on duty under Rule 12 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, there was also a propos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the value of the final product was depressed, then they could have charged, the Jalgaon unit with under-invoicing of their product. That has also not been done. The valuation as given by the Sinnar unit was duly approved by the department and the payment of duty was also duly accepted. We find absolutely no substance in the attempt of the learned Commissioner to convert a part of the duty so paid into deposit of duty . There is no legal basis for such presumption. The rules entitled the receipt manufacturer to avail of the benefit of the duty paid by the supplier manufacturer. A quantum of duty already determined by the jurisdictional officers of the supplier unit cannot be contested or challenged by the officers in charge of recipient ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as reported in 2003 (54) RLT 764 (CEGAT-Del), as also in the case of CCE Chennai vs CEGAT Chennai 2006 (202) ELT 753 (Mad), CCE vs Jyoti Ltd. 2008 (223) ELT 171 (Guj), Evergreen Engineering Co Pvt Ltd vs CCER Mumbai 2007 (215) ELT 134 (Tri-Mumbai). 3. The ratio of all these decisions is that the credit cannot be varied at recipient s end on the ground that the supplier should have paid lesser duty. We, accordingly, are of the view that denial of the credit to the appellant is not justified. The learned counsel has referred to certain other decisions of the Tribunal also, which we need not discuss in this case inasmuch as the issue stands settled in favour of the parties by the Hon ble Supreme Court s judgment in MDS Switchge....