TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1054
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing under CSH 84661010 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the audit of the records of the unit, it was noticed by the Department that the appellants had (i) wrongly availed cenvat credit of Rs. 25,663/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Three only) on debit notes in contravention of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (i) availed cenvat credit of Rs. 1,30,560/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty only) on common input services used in the factory and dealership unit without maintaining separate records and in contravention of Rule 6(3) and (iii) availed cenvat credit of Rs. 2,03,160/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Three Thousand One Hundred and Sixty only) on sales rejects under Rules 16 but did not repair o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ins all the details as required for availment of credit. He further submitted that there is no allegation as to the receipt of goods or payment of duty and hence the credit should not be denied on procedural lapses if any. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: a. CCEx., & Cust., Surat II V. Santogen Spinning Mills - 2009 (234) E.L.T. 100 (Tri. -Ahmd.) b. CCEx., Ghaziabad V. Majestic Auto Ltd - 2008 (230) E.L.T. 151 (Tri. -Delhi) c. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. V. CCE - 2010 (260) E.L.T. 106 (Tri.-Del.) He also submitted that the order of the original authority travels beyond the scope of show-cause notice inasmuch as there was no allegation in the show-cause notice that the goods are not returned back -to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that the duty would be paid as and when the goods will be used and cleared or cleared as scrap. He also submitted that the order of the original authority goes beyond the scope and confirmed the demand on the ground that EOU should not have charged duty. The learned counsel further submitted that the charging of duty by the supplier cannot be questioned at the recipient end and in support of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: a. CCE Vs. MDS Switchgears Ltd. - 2008 (229) E.L.T. 485 (S.C) b. CCE Vs. Purity Flexpack Ltd. - 2008 (223) E.L.T. 361 (Guj.) c. Sarvesh Refactories (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2007 (218) E.L.T. 488 (S.C) Learned counsel also submitted that the entire demand is barred by limitation as the Departme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AD-ST b. M/s. FL Smidth Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Tiruchirapalli & CESTAT, Chennai - 2014-TIOL-2186-HC-MAD-CX c. M/s. FL Smidth Pvt Ltd. Vs. CCE, Trichy - 2014-TIOL-1439-CESTAT-MAD. d. M/s. HCL Infosystem Ltd. Vs. CCE, Noida - 2014-TIOL-3183-CESTAT-Del. e. Metro Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai-I - 2008 (10) S.T.R. 382 (Tri. -Mumbai) f. Orion Appliances Ltd Vs. CST, Ahmedabad - 2010 (19) S.T.R. 205 (Tri. -Ahmd.) Learned AR further submitted that the assessee has wrongly taken the credit on the goods rejected or returned by EOU, He further submitted that the assessee has not violated the procedure as prescribed in Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 which requires that the assessee shall state the particulars of such receipt in his ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that as far as demand of Rs. 25,663/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Three only) on the issue of availment of credit on the basis of Debit Notes is concerned, I find that the Debit Note contains all the details as required for availment of credit. Further I find that the copies of Debit Notes have also been placed on record and in the Debit Notes the assessee has mentioned the Invoice No. by which the goods were originally sent by the appellant relates to and therefore it can easily be ascertained that the goods received by the assessee is the same as was originally sent. Further I find that the original authority as well as Commissioner (Appeals) who has upheld the Order-in-Original has travelled beyond the show-cause n....