TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 251
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... etc. recived/procured from their other units on stock transfer basis. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings initiated vide the show cause notice. Being aggrieved with the Order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Revenue has preferred this appeal before this Tribunal. The respondent assessee have filed cross objection. 2. Ld. AC(AR) on behalf of the appellant Revenue re-iterated the grounds of appeal. 3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent assessee submits that the issue has been decided in various decisions of the Hon'ble Tribunal. He also referred to the Hon'ble Tribunal's decision in the case of Exide Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia [2008(226) ELT 249 (Tri.-Kolkata)]. 4. Heard ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asis of stock transfer invoices and utilized the same towards payment of duty of their final products. 6. We find that the issue is no more resintegra and is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Exide Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia (Supra). The relevant portion of the same are reproduced as under: "2.3 He also submitted that Revenue made out a case without properly appreciating the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. reported at 2007 (215) E.L.T. 489 (S.C.). The Apex Court held that show cause notice being foundation of a proceeding, if that was baseless for no sanction of law to deny the benefit, pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx 4.3 Relevant period involved in the proceeding was April, 2000 to March, 2002 raising aforesaid demand on the allegation that input received by one unit from its sister unit were not entitled to CENVAT credit. There is nothing on record to state whether inputs so received were not used in manufacture. Also record does not demonstrate that input had not undergone suffering appropriate duty before procurement. The order of adjudication also fails to exhibit that "purchase" is an essentiality to claim CENVAT credit under law even if the term "procurement" being substituted in Rule 7(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. There is n....