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 - 2023 (6) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (6) TMI 1151 - AT - Central Excise


Issues involved:
The appeal involves the rejection of Cenvat Credit by the lower authority on the grounds that the imported engine was not used for Research & Development (R&D) as claimed by the appellant, and that the TR-6 Challan presented by the appellant was not a valid document under Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2009.

Details of the judgment:

Issue 1: Availment of Cenvat Credit
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, imported an engine under the 'ATA Carnet' scheme for exhibition purposes but later decided to retain it for R&D. The lower authority rejected the Cenvat credit on the grounds of the engine not being used for R&D and the TR-6 Challan not being a valid document. The 1st appellate authority accepted the validity of the TR-6 Challan but still denied the credit due to lack of evidence of R&D use. The Tribunal acknowledged the validity of the TR-6 Challan and directed the appellant to provide further evidence to establish the engine's use for R&D in their factory. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision based on the additional evidence to be submitted by the appellant.

Issue 2: Validity of TR-6 Challan
The validity of the TR-6 Challan as a document for establishing payment of duty was not contested by the Revenue and was deemed final by the Tribunal. The focus of the appeal was primarily on the substantiation of R&D use rather than the validity of the TR-6 Challan. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of fulfilling the conditions for availing credit as per relevant provisions and granted the appellant another opportunity to present supporting evidence, excluding the TR-6 Challan issue which had already been settled.

Conclusion:
The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for remand to the 1st Appellate Authority for a fresh decision based on the additional evidence to be provided by the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the appellant to produce all relevant documents and evidence to support their claim of using the imported engine for R&D purposes in their factory.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates