9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 909 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of CENVAT Credit - Duty passed on to buyer - Held that - The law relating to CENVAT credit removes cascading effect. When there is no controversy on the imported goods being sold and such goods suffered customs duty as well as the seller was identifiable and the principal being Indian Potash Ltd. a registered importer, there should not be controversy to grant CENVAT credit in the hands of the respondent. Therefore, both appeals of Revenue fail for which that is dismissed. - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Excise duty demand disallowing CENVAT credit on imported goods sold by unregistered branch of a registered importer. Analysis: The appeal raised excise duty demand disallowing CENVAT credit on Muriate of Potash imported by Indian Potash Limited and sold through its unregistered branch to the appellant. The adjudicating authority denied the CENVAT credit on the ground that the selling branch was not a registered dealer. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the credit considering that the principal being a registered importer and the goods being identifiable from the import, which suffered customs duty. The Revenue contended that non-registration of the selling branch should deny CENVAT credit to the appellant. On the other hand, the respondent argued that as there was no dispute regarding the imported goods sold to them by the registered importer, the non-registration of the selling branch should not disentitle them to the CENVAT credit. Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, it was noted that the law related to CENVAT credit aims to eliminate the cascading effect of taxes. In this case, since there was no dispute that the imported goods were sold, had customs duty paid, and the seller was identifiable as a registered importer, the denial of CENVAT credit based on the non-registration of the selling branch was unwarranted. Therefore, the appeals of the Revenue were dismissed, upholding the grant of CENVAT credit to the respondent for the goods sold by the registered importer through its branch. Additionally, both cross-objections supported the order of the appellate Commissioner without introducing any new grounds. Consequently, the cross-objections were also dismissed in line with the main judgment.
|
