TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 57
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o.A /10878/WZB/AHD/13 dated 23.07.2013 has committed an error allowing the Cenvat Credit of duty on the basis of the duty purportedly paid on the goods exempted from payment of Excise duty? (B) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble CESTAT has committed an error in concluding that Cenvat Credit on the inputs received is admissible to the respondent on the ground that no action is taken by the Revenue at the supplier's end, especially when there are no provisions of law for such action? (C) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case it was obligatory upon the Hon'ble CESTAT to apply the ratio of the cited judgement to the facts of the present case and same be reflected in the order?" 2. Briefly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the assessee was not entitled to avail the credit of such duty. Ultimately, when the issue reached the tribunal, the tribunal in the impugned judgement relying on decision of Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs v. MDS Switchgear Ltd. reported in 2008 (229) ELT 485 (SC), held that the assessee was entitled to cenvat credit. 5. Shri Kogje for the department drawing our attention to rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, submitted that the manufacturer or producer of final products or a provider of taxable service would be allowed to take cenvat credit of the duty of excise specified in the First Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act. In the present case, since the product was not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... product or in providing taxable service of the excise duty specified in First Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act. Insofar as the respondent is concerned, he had purchased the inputs and utilised the same for manufacture of a final product. Such goods were duty paid. Rule 3 and 4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, thus would enable him to avail the cenvat credit. It is a different thing that the supplier of the goods to the respondent paid excise duty on such product under mistaken belief. In law as declared by the Supreme Court in case of Collector of Central Excise, Patna. v . Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd (supra), no duty was payable on such product. Strictly speaking therefore, such amount deposited by the original manufacturer would not pa....