9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (12) TMI 171 - AT - Central ExciseCenvat Credit - Consigned to Unit I of the appellants were utilized in Unit II of the appellants located in the same premises after the appellants themselves altering the excise code number on the relevant invoices and also writing Unit II on the said invoices - Alteration of duty paying document - Held that the assessees is the same even though two separate registrations have been taken for the two units stated to be located in the same premises, and there is no allegation of either non-receipt or non-utilization of the impugned duty paid goods. Regarding alteration in documents, penalty of Rs. 10,000 confirmed.
Issues:
Denial of input credit and capital goods credit due to alleged tampering with duty paying documents. Analysis: The appellants were denied input credit and capital goods credit totaling Rs.59,221/- and Rs.2,11,944/- respectively. The denial was based on the allegation that goods consigned to Unit I were used in Unit II after the appellants altered the excise code number and indicated Unit II on the invoices. The denial was not due to non-receipt or non-utilization of the goods but on the grounds of tampering with duty paying documents. Despite having separate registrations for Unit I and Unit II within the same premises, the Tribunal opined that a lenient view should be taken regarding the eligibility for CENVAT credit. Consequently, the appellants were allowed to avail the disputed credit. Regarding the penalty imposed by the lower appellate authority, a reduced penalty of Rs.10,000/- was upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal justified this decision by noting that the appellants made alterations to the documents without following the proper procedure of intimating the Department and endorsing the duty paying documents from Unit I to Unit II. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, upholding the reduced penalty while granting the appellants the right to avail the disputed credit. As the appeal was disposed of, a miscellaneous application for an extension of stay was deemed unnecessary and was consequently disposed of as well.
|
