TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 571
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... main appellant M/s. Shah Paper Mills Limited (Unit-3) Vapi and confirmed the demand alongwith interest. Equivalent penalty of Rs. 12,19,605/- was also imposed by the Adjudicating authority upon the main appellant and a penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/- was imposed upon the other appellant Shri Hemant G. Modi, Director of the main appellant, under Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. 2. Shri Mayur Shroff (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that the main appellant is the manufacturer of, inter-alia, kraft paper from waste paper. That cenvat credit with respect to duty paid on the waste kraft paper received from M/s. Shah Pulp and Paper Mills Limited (SPPML, Vapi), was taken on the basis of proper duty paying documents. That ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bunal)] (b) Tata Oil Mills Company Limited vs. CCE, Cochin - [1997 (91) ELT 144 (Tribunal)] (c) CCE & Customs vs. MDS Switchgear Limited - [2008 (229) ELT 485 (SC)] It was also argued by the learned Advocate that for any improper duty paid by M/s. SPPML without appellant's knowledge, the appellant can not be denied CENVAT credit and extended period can not be invoked in the present proceedings. He made the Bench go through ground (h) of the appellant's grounds of appeal. 3. Shri J. Nair (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that segregation of imported scrap does not amount to manufacture hence no CENVAT was required to be shown on the invoices. That main appellant has not taken sufficient precautions to check that inpu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e respondent is concerned, he had purchased the inputs and utilised the same for manufacture of a final product. Such goods were duty paid. Rules 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 partake the character of excise duty. However, when the department did not dispute the classification of such manufacturer, accep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... held that duty already determined by the jurisdictional officer of the supplier unit can not be contested or challenged by the officers in the charge of the recipient unit. In the case of CCE & Cus vs. MDS Switchgear Limited (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that quantum of duty already determined by jurisdictional officers of the supplier unit can not be contested or challenged by officer Incharge of recipient units. Apex Court in Para 7 of this order held as follows:- "7. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that in fact there was no loss of revenue. It accepted the appeal by recording the following reasons : "Reasons given by the appellants for the alleged inflation of the value of the intermediate goods are logical.....