2019 (8) TMI 482

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....M. Kannan, Advocate, Shri S. Ramachandran, Consultant for the Appellant Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER PER P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO These ten appeals are filed by the appellants on the same issue and hence are being taken up and disposed of together. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. Appellants herein are manufactures of matches and availed cenvat credit on their inputs / input services used in the manufacture of the matches. Among the inputs which they used is paper board which was used to pack the matches. SCNs were issued to the appellants by the department alleging that they had purchased paper board / kraft paper from their suppliers who were not required to pay Central Excise duty in terms o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....5. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that it is not open for the officers of Central Excise having jurisdiction over their factory to decide the taxability of the products manufactured by their suppliers who fall in a different jurisdiction. He asserts that it is a well settled principle that once the assessment is done at the supplier's end, it is not open for the authorities at the recipient end to reclassify, reassess, revalue or requantify the duty and thereby deny cenvat credit to them. This issue has been settled by the Tribunal in the following cases : (i) 2018 (2) TMI 927 CESTAT Chennai - CCE Salem Vs MSP Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. (ii) 2018 (9) TMI 1652 CESTAT Chennai - M/s.Akshera papers Vs CCE Salem (ii....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 receipt manufacturer to avail of the benefit of the duty paid by the supplier manufacturer. A quantum of duty already determined by the jurisdictional officers of the supplier unit cannot be contested or challenged by the officers in charge of recipient unit [2000 (38) RLT 179]." 8. Counsel appearing for the Revenue could not assail any of the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 9. That being the position, we agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and find no merit....