Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (4) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2018 (4) TMI 471 - AT - Central Excise


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.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates