9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1242 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of CENVAT credit - Endorsement of Invoices - Invoices of Furnace Oil issued by three different suppliers, on the ground that the invoices are not permitted to be endorsed and CENVAT credit is not admissible on such endorsed invoices - Held that - Input i.e. Furnace Oil was supplied to the unit of M/s Vipras Corporation Ltd. which was taken over by the appellant and they were carrying out manufacturing activity when received the input along with invoices which were raised in favour of M/s Vipras Corporation Ltd. The input supplied was received by the appellant and used in their manufacture. From the Books of Account of the appellant, it is found that all the 19 invoices in question were against purchase of Furnace Oil in appellant s Books of Account. It is also not in dispute that the amount of all 19 invoices paid only by the appellant to the supplier. From these facts, it is clear that the buyer of the goods is the appellant and for this reason M/s Vipras Corporation Ltd. endorsed the invoices in favour of the appellant, it is also fact that M/s Vipras Corporation Ltd. is sister concern of the appellant. - invoice was endorsed by the sister concern of the appellant and the premises of which the goods were consigned is under the possession of the appellant - appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of CENVAT credit on endorsed invoices. 2. Time-barred demand due to alleged suppression of facts. Detailed Analysis: 1. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on Endorsed Invoices: The primary issue in this case revolves around whether the appellant, who took over the factory premises of M/s Vipras Corporation Ltd., is entitled to avail CENVAT credit on "Furnace Oil" invoices endorsed in their favor. The appellant argued that since they had taken over the factory and continued the production activities, the inputs covered under the 19 invoices were used by them in the manufacturing process. The invoices were originally issued in the name of M/s Vipras Corporation Ltd., but the appellant made the payments and accounted for the purchases in their books. The appellant cited several judgments to support their claim that CENVAT credit is permissible on endorsed invoices: - Raj Rayon Vs. CCE, Vapi: The Tribunal held that inputs received and utilized by the appellant in the manufacture of final products, even if invoices were addressed differently, are eligible for credit. - CCE, Coimbatore Vs. Coimbatore Murugan Mills: It was held that endorsed invoices between sister concerns are valid for CENVAT credit. - CCE, Noida Vs. Flex Industries Ltd.: Endorsed invoices within the same company were accepted as valid documents for credit. - Zenith Weavers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Surat: The Tribunal allowed credit on invoices endorsed by the manufacturer's own depot. - Gautam Weaving Mills Vs. CCE, Belapur: The High Court held that if there is no dispute regarding the duty-paid nature of the inputs and their receipt in the factory, credit should not be denied due to deficiencies in the duty-paying document. The Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed received the inputs and used them in manufacturing. The invoices were endorsed by M/s Vipras Corporation Ltd., a sister concern, and the payments were made by the appellant. The Tribunal referred to Rule 10 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which allows the transferee entity to avail CENVAT credit when a unit is taken over. The judgments cited by the appellant were found applicable, and the Tribunal concluded that the appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit. 2. Time-Barred Demand Due to Alleged Suppression of Facts: The appellant contended that the demand was time-barred as there was no suppression of facts. They argued that the issue of admissibility of CENVAT credit on endorsed invoices had been addressed in various judgments and circulars, and they had a bona fide belief that the credit was admissible. The appellant relied on the following case laws: - Padmini Products Vs. CCE: The Supreme Court held that suppression of facts must be willful and with an intent to evade duty. - Chemphar Drugs & Liniments: The Supreme Court reiterated that suppression must be intentional to evade duty. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that there was no malafide intention to evade duty. The appellant had informed the adjudicating authority about the takeover and submitted the agreement between the units. Given the legal precedents and the bona fide belief of the appellant, the Tribunal found that the demand was indeed time-barred. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the right to avail CENVAT credit on the endorsed invoices and ruling that the demand was time-barred due to the absence of any suppression of facts. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief in accordance with the law.
|
