9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 1018 - AT - Central ExciseDuty paying documents - Availability of cenvat credit Bills of Entry not in the name of manufacturer Bills in the name of the person who sold the goods and endorsed the bill Held that - Following Vimal Enterprises Vs. Union of India 2005 (7) TMI 111 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD and Marmagoa Steel Ltd., Vs. Union of India 2005 (4) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY - Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not require that Bill of entry should be in the name of the person claiming credit of duty and there was no provision regarding endorsement of the Bill of entry, Modvat Credit on the basis of such bill of entry cannot be denied Decided against Revenue.
Issues involved:
- Validity of availing Cenvat Credit based on an endorsed Bill of entry not in the manufacturer's name. - Interpretation of Rule 9(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules regarding valid documents for claiming Cenvat Credit. - Comparison of tribunal judgments on the validity of endorsed invoices for Cenvat Credit. Analysis: The case involved a dispute over the validity of availing Cenvat Credit by a manufacturer based on an endorsed Bill of entry not in their name but endorsed by the importer. The Department contended that such endorsement does not make the manufacturer eligible for Cenvat Credit, citing Rule 9(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, which specifies valid documents for claiming credit. The Department relied on a Larger Bench judgment in the case of M/s. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., which held that an invoice or Bill of entry not issued by the manufacturer or registered dealer is not a valid document for claiming Cenvat Credit. The appellant argued against the Department's stance, emphasizing that the issue had been decided in the Department's favor by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the M/s. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. case. The appellant highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory rules and cited a Supreme Court judgment to support their position. The appellant contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in allowing the appeal based on a different tribunal judgment and that the Larger Bench's decision should prevail. On the other hand, the respondent defended their position by stating that the goods covered by the Bill of entry had been received and used for manufacturing, emphasizing that the Bill of entry had been endorsed in their favor. The respondent referred to judicial precedents, including a Gujarat High Court case and a Bombay High Court case, which supported the validity of availing Cenvat Credit based on endorsed documents. The respondent argued that the Tribunal's decision in the M/s. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. case lacked reasoning and that other courts had taken a different view on similar matters. After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the records, the judge found that the facts of the case were undisputed, with the goods being received and used for manufacturing based on the endorsed Bill of entry. The judge referenced the M/s. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. case and subsequent court judgments, particularly the Bombay High Court's decision in the Marmagoa Steel Ltd. case. The judge concluded that the Bombay High Court's judgment was directly applicable to the present case, and considering the conflicting views from different courts, dismissed the Revenue's appeal. In conclusion, the judgment focused on the interpretation of statutory rules regarding valid documents for claiming Cenvat Credit and reconciling conflicting tribunal and court decisions on the validity of availing credit based on endorsed invoices or Bill of entry not in the manufacturer's name. The judge's decision aligned with the Bombay High Court's interpretation, emphasizing the importance of statutory provisions and applicable legal precedents.
|
