Whether an unregistered buyer is required to get registration for dealer under Rule 11(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002?

[Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN]

Rule 11 (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 provides that the invoice shall be serially numbered and shall contain the registration number, address of the concerned Central Excise division, name of the consignee, description, classification, time and date of removal, mode of transport and vehicle registration number, rate of duty, quantity and value, of goods and the duty payable thereon.  The proviso to this rule provides that in case of a proprietary concern or a business owned by Hindu Undivided Family, the name of the proprietor or Hindu Undivided Family, as the case may be, shall also be mentioned in the invoice.

Vide clause 4 of Notification NO. 8/2015-CE (NT), dated 01.03.2015 provisos are inserted after the proviso to Rule 11 (2) which read as follows:

 “Provided further that if goods are directly sent to a job worker on the direction of a manufacturer or the provider of output service, the invoice shall also contain the details of the manufacturer or the provider of output service, as the case may be, as buyer and contain the details of job worker as the consignee:

Provided also that if the goods are directly sent to any person on the direction of the registered dealer, the invoice shall also contain the details of the registered dealer as the buyer and the person as the consignee, and that person shall take CENVAT credit on the basis of the registered dealer’s invoice:

Provided also that if the goods imported under the cover of a bill of entry are sent directly to buyer’s premises, the invoice issued by the importer shall mention that goods are sent directly from the place or port of import to the buyer’s premises.”

The said notification came into effect from 01.03.2015.   The newly inserted third proviso to Rule 11 (2) provides that if the goods are directly sent to any person on the direction of the registered dealer, the invoice shall also contain the details of the registered dealer as the buyer and the person as the consignee, and that person shall take CENVAT credit on the basis of the registered dealer’s invoice.  The words ‘the invoice shall also contain details of the registered dealer as the buyer’ bring many a confusion among the trade on its implication.   It appears that if the buyers of the goods are now required to take registration and issue CENVATable invoice to allow credit to the consignee of the goods.

Clarification has also been requested by the trade regarding continued applicability of circular no 96/7/95-CX dt 13-2-1995, 137/48/95-CX dt 18-7-1995 and 218/52/96-CX dt 4-6-1996, in so far as these circulars pertain to availment of credit on strength of original manufacturer’s invoice where a dealer including an indenting dealer has procured order and has arranged direct transport of the goods from the premises of the manufacturer to the premises of the consignee. Further, clarification has also been sought regarding change in the requirement of registration for dealers consequent upon amendment in the rules.

In respect of the requirement for registration for dealers the circular vide Para 5(iii) clarified as – “Where a un-registered dealer negotiates sale of an entire consignment from a manufacturer or a registered importer and orders direct transport of goods to the consignee, credit can be availed by the consignee on the basis of invoice issued by the manufacturer or the registered importer. As the dealer is not registered, there is no question of issuing any Cenvatable invoice by him. Such dealers as in the past can continue to be un-registered.”

In view of the above said clarification it is not required for the unregistered buyer to take registration or issue cenvatable invoice.   Thus the consignee can continue to take CENVAT credit on manufacturer’s/registered/importer’s invoice.

Discussions to this article

[abhi panic]

I think it would have been nice had you made a mention of the Board Circular 1003/20/2015 issued on 05.05.2015 in your article which I think inadvertently remained. although you have extracted para 5 (iii) of the same.

since the Board has already clarified long back there was no necessity of raising this question i feel. by the way it is always better to have a positive caption to an article rather than a depressing one.

abhishek panicker

[MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN]

Dear Sir,

I take note of your suggestion Sir. Thank you.

[Rakesh Chitkara]

Impressed at the humility displayed to comments of Mr. Abhi Panic, by the author who is a prolific writer and a walking encyclopedia. I salute you Mr. Govindarajan for your expertise. May you continue to be our lighthouse of knowledge.

[MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN]

How are you Sir? Thank you for nice comments.