Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 471 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - duty paying documents - appellant availed credit on inputs on the basis of Bill of Entry which were not addressed to the appellant - Held that - the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Bhopal Vs. SS Cropcare Ltd. 2016 (7) TMI 1140 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has decided the identical issue and has held that the assessee is entitled to claim CENVAT credit on the basis of Bill of Entry which is endorsed in his favour by the importer / principal manufacturer so long there is no dispute with regard to duty paid character of inputs and received by the assessee and utilization of the same in the manufacture of the products. The impugned order denying the CENVAT credit only on the ground of endorsed Bill of Entry is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decide in favor of appellant.
Issues involved:
Appeal against demand of irregular CENVAT credit availed on inputs not addressed to the appellant. Analysis: The appeal challenged the demand of ?5,91,28,295 confirmed by the Commissioner due to irregular CENVAT credit availed on inputs not addressed to the appellant. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing, availed CENVAT credit on duty paid inputs for manufacturing medicaments for various companies. The Revenue alleged irregular credit availed on imported inputs not addressed to the appellants. The Commissioner confirmed the demand, leading to the appeal. The appellant argued that the impugned order lacked legal sustainability as it disregarded CENVAT Credit Rules and binding judicial precedents, favoring the assessee. Citing relevant decisions, the appellant contended that the issue was settled in favor of the assessee by various Tribunal decisions. On the contrary, the AR defended the impugned order, stating that the appellant wrongly availed credit on invalid documents under Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, citing supporting decisions. After considering both parties' submissions, the Tribunal referred to a previous decision where it was held that an assessee could claim CENVAT credit based on an endorsed Bill of Entry by the importer/principal manufacturer, given no dispute on duty paid inputs' character, receipt, and utilization in manufacturing. The Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable solely on the ground of an endorsed Bill of Entry. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Department's early hearing application due to the narrow issue's scope and proceeded to decide the case on merits. The appeal was against the demand of irregular CENVAT credit availed on inputs not addressed to the appellant, with the Tribunal ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee based on established legal principles and precedents.
|