2017 (3) TMI 8

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Mr. Mohammad Yousuf, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 14.10.2014 passed by the Commissioner (A) wherein the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. 2.  Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is a company engaged in the business of textile p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ations with regard to levy and collection of duty from the said supplier and the Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 23.12.2008 had held that said machineries were unconditionally exempt from payment of duty under the provisions of Notification No.6/2002 dated 1.3.2002 and despite such exemption being available, the said suppliers had cleared the said machineries on payment of duty and colle....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellant. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4.  The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by ignoring the provisions of law as well as the judgments of the higher judicial fora. He further submitted that it is a well settled law that the officers having jurisdiction over the factory re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant and paid by the supplier to the Government is still in the nature of duty and hence, credit could not have been denied. Learned counsel also questioned the invoking of larger period of limitation. Further, in support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: i. Kerala State Electronic Corpn. Vs. CCE, Kochi: 1996 (84) ELT 44 (Tribunal) ii. CCE, Mumbai-I vs. N....