2017 (11) TMI 647

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For The Appellant : Sh. S.C. Jain, Advocate for the appellant For The Respondent : Sh. Dharam Singh, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran: The appeal is against order dated 24.02.2011 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of RF-Feeder cable liable to Central Excise duty. They were also availing credit of duty paid on in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nufacture of their final product, the credit itself was not available. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated which resulted in the impugned order. The original authority ordered recovery of inadmissible credit of Rs. 72,68,314/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the items on which they have tak....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Credit Rules, 2004. 4. Heard both the sides and perused appeal records. 5. Admittedly, the inputs on which credit was taken as accessories were cleared alongwith RF-Feeder cable by the appellant. There is no dispute in this regard. However, when the appellants cleared the inputs without RF-Feeder cable, the Revenue entertained a view that the credit taken on such inputs, which cannot qualify....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant. It is clearly recorded that the appellants have not benefited at all in the process. In fact, they added mark up in the impugned inputs and have paid more duty than the credit taken. It was recorded by the original authority that it is interpretational issue. As such we find no justification to order for further recovery of credit on these inputs which were already reversed by the appellant ....