TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 525
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant Commissioner, Central Excise, Durgapur, vide Order-in-Original dated 24.03.2017 consequent to denial of Cenvat credit on inputs for the period 2011-12 to 2015-16. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of M. S. Ingots and M. S. Billets on which central excise duty is being paid. The appellant procured parts of induction furnace on payment of central excise duty on which credit was availed. This has been disputed by the department. It is the case of the department that the goods on which credit has been availed, was supplied by one, M/s. Inductotherm (I) Pvt Ltd, Ahmedabad ('supplier'), which was cleared 'as such' at a value higher than the value at which the said goods were procured....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntal Representative while supporting the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad vs. Inductrotherm (I) Pvt Ltd 2012 (283) ELT 359 (Guj) wherein it has been held that the assessee clearing the goods 'as such' could not change the value while clearing the bought out goods, even though the assessee has paid the duty by way of debiting the CENVAT credit account and therefore, the assessee is required to deposit the said duty amount under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act. He submitted that since the amount that has been paid for the goods is not a duty, the appellant cannot avail CENVAT credit. On the said premise, the Ld. DR prayed that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e supplier on the strength of duty paid excise invoice particularly in the fact of the case that goods have been physically received by the appellant for use in manufacture. Now in so far as the dispute regarding payment of amount 'as duty' higher that the amount payable, I am of the view that the issue is no longer res- integra inasmuch it is now settled legal position that credit cannot be denied to the recipient when duty amount was legally not payable or that duty was paid at a higher rate or value. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs. Ranbaxy Labs Ltd 2006 (203) ELT 213 (P&H) held that even if duty was legally not payable, credit cannot be denied to the recipient of goods when admittedly duty ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as by the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed as under :- '4. The law on the point that the manufacturer can avail the Modvat Credit only to the extent of the duty paid on the inputs purchased is well settled. In the absence of the inputs being subjected to duty payment question of availing modvat credit by the manufacturer procuring such inputs does not arise, once the authorities had held that the supplier of the inputs was not subjected to the duty payment, question of appellants seeking to avail modvat credit in respect of inputs so supplied by the supplier cannot arise. 5. In case the supplier had paid the duty wrongly or by mistake, that would only entitle the supplier to seek refund of such amount.....