9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 391 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - duty paying invoices - supplementary invoices, raised by M/s. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., for supply of coal - Held that - Tribunal in connected matter of South Eastern Coalfield Ltd. vide Final Order No.52723-52726/2017 dated 3.4.2017, taking notice of pendency of similar matter before the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. and ors., disposed of the appeal of the South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., granting liberty to them to come again in E/51278/2018 4 after having final verdict from the Hon ble Supreme Court. The appellant is entitled to take cenvat credit on the supplementary invoices in question - further, there is no element of fraud and suppression on the part of the appellant. The issue herein is recurring in nature. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
- Objection by Revenue on taking cenvat credit on supplementary invoices for coal supply. - Interpretation of Rule 9(1)(b) of CCR 2004 regarding validity of supplementary invoices for cenvat credit. - Disallowance of cenvat credit by adjudicating authority and commissioner (A). - Dispute over inclusion of charges in assessable value and denial of cenvat credit. - Reference to Tribunal's previous order and pendency of similar matters before the Supreme Court. Analysis: The primary issue in this appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi was the objection raised by the Revenue regarding the appellant's entitlement to cenvat credit on supplementary invoices issued by M/s. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. for the supply of coal. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Cement Clinker and Cement, availed cenvat credit on various inputs under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, including coal purchased from SECL, a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. The Revenue contended that the appellant was not entitled to cenvat credit on the supplementary invoices under Rule 9(1)(b) of the CCR 2004, as the supplier had not included certain charges in the original invoices, which were later included in the supplementary invoices. A show cause notice was issued, disallowing the cenvat credit, leading to subsequent orders against the appellant by the adjudicating authority and the commissioner (A). The appellant argued that the issue of including charges like royalty charges in the assessable value was subjudice before the Supreme Court, making the denial of cenvat credit on grounds of fraud or suppression untenable. The appellant also relied on a previous order by the Tribunal in their favor on a similar issue. After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal noted that the issue was recurring in nature and observed that there was no element of fraud or suppression on the part of the appellant. Referring to a previous case involving South Eastern Coalfield Ltd., the Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was entitled to take cenvat credit on the supplementary invoices in question. The Tribunal emphasized the absence of fraud and suppression and granted consequential relief to the appellant. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision favored the appellant, allowing them to avail cenvat credit on the disputed supplementary invoices for coal supply, based on the recurring nature of the issue and the absence of fraudulent intent on the part of the appellant.
|
