9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 85 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - Validity of invoices on which credit is taken - Held that - Chassis manufactured and cleared from Jamshedpur were actually received by the appellant for the purpose of fabrication of the body. The order of the original adjudicating authority reveals that he has co-related the invoices issued by Jamshedpur and Bombay and has found that all the requisite particulars establish that the same chassis were received by the Bombay office from the Jamshedpur office. We note that the provisions of Rule 57G were amended by way of introducing sub-rule (11) of the said Rule on 9-2-1999 which is to the effect that if there is no dispute about the duty paid character of the inputs and receipt of the same by an assessee, and if the Assistant Commissioner is satisfied about the above facts, the Cenvat credit shall not be disallowed on the technical and procedural ground of the invoices not being proper invoices. As such, we are of the view that in the absence of any dispute about the availability of credit, duty paid character of the chassis their receipt by the appellant and their subsequent clearance after fabrication of bodies on the same, denial of credit would not be justified. We accordingly, set aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Availability of Cenvat credit on duty paid chassis. 2. Validity of invoices issued by M/s. TELCO, Jamshedpur and TELCO, Bombay. 3. Interpretation of Rule 57G and 57H regarding Cenvat credit eligibility. Analysis: Issue 1: Availability of Cenvat credit on duty paid chassis The appellant was engaged in building bodies on duty paid chassis supplied by M/s. TELCO, Jamshedpur on a job work basis and availing Cenvat credit on the duty paid chassis. The original adjudicating authority vacated the show cause notices proposing denial of credit, emphasizing that the invoices issued by TELCO, Bombay contained all requisite particulars for Cenvat credit. The Tribunal noted that there was no dispute regarding the receipt of chassis by the appellant for fabrication, and the duty paid character of the inputs. Referring to Rule 57G amendments, the Tribunal held that denial of credit based on technical invoice issues was not justified, ultimately allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant. Issue 2: Validity of invoices issued by M/s. TELCO, Jamshedpur and TELCO, Bombay The Revenue raised concerns about the invoices issued by TISCO, Jamshedpur in the name of TELCO, Bombay, which were then endorsed or reissued to the appellant for availing Cenvat credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the registration status of TELCO, Bombay for determining the validity of these invoices. However, the Tribunal resolved the dispute without delving into the amendments of Rule 57G or 57H, highlighting the correlation between the invoices issued by Jamshedpur and Bombay, establishing the receipt of chassis by the appellant for fabrication purposes. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the duty paid character of the chassis and the receipt by the appellant, ultimately allowing the appeal. Issue 3: Interpretation of Rule 57G and 57H regarding Cenvat credit eligibility The amendments in Rule 57G and 57H were brought to attention during the appeal process, with a focus on the technicalities of proper invoices for Cenvat credit eligibility. However, the Tribunal chose to resolve the dispute based on the factual aspects of chassis receipt and fabrication, rather than the procedural intricacies. By emphasizing the absence of any dispute regarding credit availability, duty paid character of the chassis, and their subsequent clearance after fabrication, the Tribunal concluded that denial of credit was unwarranted. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief to the appellant. In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi addressed the issues of Cenvat credit availability, invoice validity, and Rule interpretation, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant based on the factual substantiation of chassis receipt and fabrication, disregarding technical invoice discrepancies.
|
