EXPRO INDIA LIMITED Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the issue involved in this case is in narrow compass appeal itself is being taken up for hearing after granting waiver of pre -deposit of duty and penalty.

(2.) AFTER hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the credit was denied on the ground that the appellants availed credit on the basis of supplementary invoice No. 562 dated 14.10.2005 issued by the supplier Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd. who paid the duty consequent upon Final Order No. 44/CEX/2005 dated 13.10.2005 of the Settlement Commission. Both the authorities below proceeded on the basis that the show cause notice dated 16.11.2004 issued to Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd. alleging that they had colluded with Xpro India Ltd. who did not utilize 100% raw material i.e. HIPS granules supplied to them and availed excess credit to the extent of 3%. It has been alleged that the appellants availed credit on the basis of supplementary invoice which is covered under Exclusion Clause (b) of Sub -rule (1) of Rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules. Learned Advocate submits that the issue has already been decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bosch Chassis Systems India Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi -III, Gurgaon reported in . The relevant portion of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal is reproduced below:

(3.) IN view of that impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the original authority to decide afresh on the basis of the above decision. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay application is also disposed of.