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 - 2006 (7) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2006 (7) TMI 65 - AT - Central Excise


Issues: Appeal against disallowance of Modvat credit based on transfer of credit by a registered dealer and validity of Modvat/Cenvat benefit on invoices.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against the orders disallowing Modvat credit to the appellants, which were upheld by the appellate authority. The appellants availed Modvat/Cenvat credit on invoices issued by a registered dealer, M/s. EBG India Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad. The revenue authorities issued a show cause notice alleging that the said dealer had taken over a running firm along with the depot at Faridabad and was not permitted to transfer the unutilized credit. The appellants argued that they had received and consumed the inputs, supported by duty paying documents showing the duty paid character of the inputs. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the current appeal.

The advocate for the appellant contended that a similar issue was resolved by a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Precision Stamping involving the same registered dealer, EBG India Limited. The Departmental Representative argued that if the dealer was denied credit transfer, then the Modvatable invoices were ineligible for Modvat/Cenvat benefit. After considering the arguments and reviewing the records, it was established that the inputs mentioned in the invoices were indeed received and used by the appellants in their factory, with the duty liability discharged by the original manufacturer.

A crucial precedent from the case of Precision Stampings was cited, where the Tribunal held that denial of credit transfer did not invalidate the Modvatable documents if the dealer was registered at the time of issuance, and the goods were received under valid invoices. The Tribunal emphasized the actual receipt, duty paid character, and utilization of the goods by the appellants. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals, following the precedent set by the co-ordinate bench in the Precision Stamping case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the issue raised in the present appeal was covered by the precedent established in the Precision Stamping case. Therefore, the impugned order disallowing Modvat credit was set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates