9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 1370 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - Department issued Show Cause Notice on the ground that the invoices of M/s. Roshanlal Bhagirathmal show the Name and Address of the Agent as the buyer and the present Appellant is shown as consignee - HELD THAT - Admittedly, there is no dispute that the goods in question have been received by the Appellant in their factory premises and the same were properly recorded in their Books of Account. Even the Invoices in question clearly show the details of the Appellant along with their ECC Number and Central Excise Range and Division etc. The Tribunal in the case of KUNSTSTOFF POLYMERS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BHOPAL 2009 (5) TMI 743 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI has held just because the invoices issued by M/s. SC Enviro Agro India Pvt. Ltd. mention M/s. Sumitomo Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. as the customer, while at the same time mentioning the appellant as the consignee, will not become invalid document for taking Cenvat credit, we therefore, hold that the impugned order is not sustainable. The Appellant is eligible for the Cenvat Credit - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of the Appellant to take Cenvat Credit based on the nature of the invoices received from the supplier. The Appellant, M/s. S. S. Engineering Works, procured inputs from M/s. Roshanlal Bhagirathmal, with the Excise Duty shown in the invoices taken as Cenvat Credit. The Department issued a Show Cause Notice alleging that the Appellant was not eligible to claim Cenvat Credit due to discrepancies in the invoices. The Appellant contended that their name was prominently listed as the Consignee in the invoices, and the goods were received and accounted for in their records. The Appellant relied on the case law of Kunststoff Polymers Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Bhopal-2009, where a similar issue was decided in favor of the Appellant. The Appellant argued that internal arrangements with the vendor led to the agent's name being listed as the buyer on the invoices. The Authorized Representative for the Department reiterated the Lower Authorities' findings that the Appellant was not the buyer as per the invoices. The Tribunal examined the records and noted that the goods were received by the Appellant in their factory premises, with all details, including the Appellant's ECC Number, clearly mentioned in the invoices. Citing the case of Kunststoff Polymers Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Bhopal-2009, the Tribunal emphasized that the mention of the customer's name and the consignee on the invoices does not invalidate the document for claiming Cenvat Credit, especially when the goods were directly received by the user. Relying on previous judgments, the Tribunal held that as the goods were received directly by the Appellant from a second stage dealer, the invoices were valid for claiming Cenvat Credit. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the Appellant was eligible for the Cenvat Credit based on the circumstances of the case, in line with the precedent. (Dictated and pronounced in the open court.)
|
