(1.) Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein adjudication order was set aside.
(2.) The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts classifiable under heading No. 8708 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They availed Cenvat credit on the basis of duty paid invoice issued by M/s. Allied Metal Technologies. It has been alleged that the respondents availed credit on the inputs namely HR/CR sheet after cutting and slitting process which does not amount to manufacture as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Faridabad Iron and Steel Traders Association, 2005 (181) ELT A68 (SC) and therefore they are not eligible to take credit on the basis of invoices issued after 2.3.2005. Original authority disallowed Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,55,625/ - and imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/ - along with interest. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order. Hence Revenue filed this appeal.
(3.) The learned DR on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal. He submits that the process of cutting and slitting amounting to manufacture has been nullified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Faridabad Iron and Steel Traders Association (supra). He further submits that inputs supplier M/s. Allied Metal and Technologies, was also working in the jurisdiction of the same Commissionerate of the respondent. It has been held that in the case of input supplier, credit is not admissible in respect of stock received after 2.3.05 vide adjudication order No. 11/KKJ/Adjn/2007 dated 31.5.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi IV, Faridabad. He also submits that the inputs contained in the work in progress lying with the said inputs supplier as on 2.3.05 was reversed by them. He also submits that the respondent had taken credit on inputs received post 2.3.2005, which cannot be legally passed by the input supplier.