Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2006
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The appeal is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
This appeal has been preferred under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by revenue against the order dated 30.11.2005 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No.E/3589/03, proposing following substantial question of law:-
Whether the Cenvat credit is allowable on the goods stated to have manufactured & supplied, when on physical verification it was found that no machinery/sufficient machinery was available to manufacture the huge quantity of goods?
The adjudicating authority disallowed the claim for modvat credit on the ground that the supplier of inputs was not the manufacturer. This finding was recorded on the basis of investigations by the department. On appeal of the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the said finding having regard to the material on record that the supplier of inputs was having the machinery particulars of which were supplied to the department and was also engaged in regular manufacturing activities. This material could not be rebutted by the
Operative part
department. The said finding has been affirmed by the Tribunal. C.E.A. No.115 of 2006 -2- In view of the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE October 13, 2006 ashwani ( RAJESH BINDAL ) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is dismissed
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 13 Oct 2006. The bench was ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, RAJESH BINDAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.