2016 (5) TMI 1239

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sued show cause notice No.36/2011 dated 8.3.2011 seeking to deny credit to the tune of Rs. 3,13,690/- on the ground that M/s Hyundai Motor India Ltd., had cleared Steel Coils vide their invoice No.RM- 8070714 dated 17.3.2009 and paid duty to the tune of Rs. 3,13,690 for a quantity of 4.366 MTs of Coil valued at Rs. 2,15,543/-. It was stated that it is not possible to ascertain the actual amount which is required to be reversed by M/s Hyundai Motor India Limited (HMIL) as per Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and further the exact amount which is eligible for credit to the appellant. The show cause notice alleged that the appellant wrongly availed the above credit during the month of March 2009 and demanded the above credit by invoking ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iginal authority to hold that the appellant is not eligible to take credit of the amount mentioned in the invoice. In any case appellants officers do not have jurisdiction to question the assessment of HMIL. The payment made by HMIL can be questioned by the officers having jurisdiction over their unit and not by the officers having jurisdiction over the appellant. The payment made by HMIL has not been refunded or reassessed by the Department and therefore it would be incorrect to deny the entire credit to the appellant. In any case the appellant took the credit of duty paid and as mentioned in the invoice, there was no malafide intention on the part of the appellant When there is no dispute with regard to the payment of duty by HMIL, the s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....levant to the facts of the present case. 7. The learned Advocate in his rejoinder submitted that the judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court cited supra was a case where the officer having jurisdiction over the factory held that the excess payment is incorrect. In the present case the officer having jurisdiction over HMIL has not disputed the payment made by HMIL and therefore the above judgement in not applicable to the facts of this case. 8. I have carefully gone through the records of the case and the submissions made by both sides. It is a fact that the appellant received the material from HMIL and they had paid the duty which was indicated in the said invoice. The appellant had taken the credit based on the proper invoice iss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the respondent manufacturer had taken reasonable steps to know the licit origin, identity and the address of the manufacturer, the assessee can avail the credit as reflected in the invoices accompanying the inputs. In CCE & C v. MDS Switchgear Ltd., reported in 2008 (229) E.L.T. 485 (S.C.), the Apex Court cited with approval the following excerpts from the Tribunal's decision challenged before that Court : "the rule entails the 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 respondent unit [2000 (120) E.L.T. 379 (Tribunal) = 2000 (38) RLT 179]." I do not ....