9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 216 - AT - Central ExciseCenvat Credit - profit of receipt of inputs / raw material - Requisite form i.e; ST XXVI-A form not supplied to department Held that - Denial of credit on the basis of ST XXVI-A form issued by Sales Tax Department cannot be on the sole ground of non-production of such forms COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH Versus HITKARI INDUSTRIES LTD. 2008 (2) TMI 124 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - the appellant had taken a categorical stand that the payments for such receipt of raw materials were made by cheque/draft and the Revenue has not made any inquiry from the supplier of the raw materials - the appellants having taken a categorical stand of payments having been made by cheque/draft, it was for the Revenue to prove otherwise - They have not even bothered to approach the supplier of the raw materials so as to find out the correct position - Revenue s sole reliance on the absence of ST XXVI-A forms, as retrieved from the sales tax department is not justified. There is no documentary evidence on record to reveal that what was received by the manufacturer is reprocessed granules and not the virgin granules as reflected in the records - order set aside Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues:
1. Cenvat credit on HDPE granules. 2. Validity of ST XXVI-A forms for availing credit. 3. Revenue's appeal against dropping the demand. Analysis: Issue 1: Cenvat credit on HDPE granules The appellants, engaged in manufacturing HDPE pipes, availed Cenvat credit on duty paid for HDPE granules received from various manufacturers and registered dealers. The Revenue contended that since all required ST XXVI-A forms were not provided by the Sales Tax department, the appellants were not entitled to the credit. However, the Tribunal found that the denial of credit solely based on the absence of ST XXVI-A forms was unjustified. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellants had made payments for the raw materials by cheques/drafts, and the Revenue failed to investigate with the suppliers. The Tribunal noted that the appellants were able to produce some ST XXVI-A forms during adjudication, contradicting the Sales Tax department's information. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the demand and penalties imposed on the appellants, allowing all four appeals. Issue 2: Validity of ST XXVI-A forms for availing credit The Tribunal observed that similar cases had been brought against units in Himachal Pradesh, where some could produce additional ST XXVI-A forms, while others could not. Referring to previous decisions, the Tribunal emphasized that reliance solely on sales tax documents was not justified when conflicting records were maintained by the assessee, and payments were made through cheques/drafts. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not investigate the payment methods or approach the suppliers to verify information. The Tribunal found that the absence of ST XXVI-A forms, as per Sales Tax department records, did not hold weight, especially when the appellants had evidence of payment. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the demands and penalties imposed. Issue 3: Revenue's appeal against dropping the demand In the Revenue's appeal, it was argued that the benefit extended to the assessee based on ST XXVI-A forms was not valid as the granules received were allegedly reprocessed. However, the Tribunal found no documentary evidence to support the claim that the granules were reprocessed, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to grant the benefit to the assessee based on the evidence provided during adjudication. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the appellants' appeals, emphasizing the importance of thorough investigation and evidence in determining Cenvat credit eligibility and rejecting unfounded claims based on incomplete documentation.
|
