2016 (12) TMI 726

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....; Ms. Krati Somani, Advocate for the appellant Shri G. M. Sharma, AR respondent PER: ASHOK JINDAL The duty of Rs. 61,94,676/- has been confirmed against the appellant on account of denial of credit to the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant procured inputs, namely, polypropylene chips - PP chips and paid duty thereon and took credit and it was alleged th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the appellant. To support his contention, he relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of MDS Switchgear Ltd.2001 (132) ELT 405 (Tri.-Mum) which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2008 (229) ELT 485 (SC). 4. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. Considering the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der-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 recipie....