9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (4) TMI 528 - AT - Central ExciseAvailment of CENVAT Credit - Credit denied since the bills of entry on the basis of which Cenvat credit has been taken do not bear the appellant unit s address and there was no provision for endorsement of bill of entry and as such an endorsed bill of entry is not a valid duty paying document under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - both the units - the unit at Dharuhera which has taken the Cenvat credit and the Gurgaon unit whose address appears in the bills of entry, under which the inputs and capital goods had been imported - belong to the same company and it is a case of transfer of inputs and capital goods by one unit of a company to another unit. The credit has, therefore, been correctly taken - Following decision of UOI v. Marmagoa Steel Ltd. 2008 (7) TMI 95 - SUPREME COURT and Bando India (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Delhi-III 2010 (6) TMI 709 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - Stay granted.
Issues:
1. Validity of taking Cenvat credit based on endorsed bills of entry with different addresses. 2. Interpretation of Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 3. Transfer of goods between units of the same company for Cenvat credit. Issue 1: Validity of taking Cenvat credit based on endorsed bills of entry with different addresses: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing motor vehicle parts chargeable to Central Excise Duty, imported goods for one unit but the bills of entry bore the address of another unit. The department contended that Cenvat credit was wrongly taken as the endorsed bills of entry were not valid duty paying documents under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner confirmed a demand for Cenvat credit repayment and imposed a penalty. The appellant challenged this order. Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: The Tribunal considered the dispute regarding the validity of Cenvat credit based on endorsed bills of entry. The appellant argued that since both units belonged to the same company and the goods were transferred between units, the credit was correctly taken. Citing the judgment in the case of UOI v. Marmagoa Steel Ltd., the Tribunal held that the issue had been decided in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal also referred to the case of Bando India (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Delhi-III, where a similar decision was made. The Tribunal concluded that the credit had been rightfully taken, setting aside the Commissioner's order. Issue 3: Transfer of goods between units of the same company for Cenvat credit: The Tribunal emphasized that there was no dispute regarding the receipt of goods by the appellant unit. It noted that both units belonged to the same company, and the transfer of goods between units was legitimate. Relying on legal precedents and the fact that the units were under the same ownership, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was not sustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and stay application, overturning the Commissioner's decision. This judgment clarifies the application of Cenvat credit rules in cases involving endorsed bills of entry with different addresses for units of the same company, emphasizing the legality of transferring goods between such units for credit purposes.
|
