9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 534 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - dealer s invoices - allegation that the cenvatable invoices issued by the registered dealer M/s. M.K. Steels, Kolkata, were not valid invoices in as much as they have not procured the goods from the manufacturer - Held that - Revenue has not shown any alternate source of procurement of input and also considering the Rule 7(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002, held that the manufacturers were entitled to the CENVAT credit. - Following decision of SK Foils Ltd. Vs. CCE, Rohtak vide 2014 (3) TMI 412 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , wherein the entire legal position as also various precedent decisions of the Tribunal were considered.- no justification for denial of credit to the appellants. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Denial of CENVAT credit and imposition of penalty based on allegedly invalid invoices. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the denial of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 3,55,389 and the imposition of a penalty on the appellants due to the alleged invalidity of invoices issued by a registered dealer, M/s. M.K. Steels, Kolkata. The denial was based on the assertion that the dealer did not procure goods from the manufacturer, citing Alert Circular No.01/2006, dated 22.06.2006. The judge, Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, noted that invoices from the same dealer to other manufacturers were also under scrutiny in other appeals. In a related case, the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the appeal of another manufacturer who had availed credit based on similar invoices. The matter was elevated to the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Kanpur Vs. M/s. Juhi Alloys Ltd., where it was held that if the manufacturing unit availed credit based on valid invoices, the credit could not be denied solely on the grounds of the dealer not procuring goods from the manufacturers. This decision was supported by Board Circular No.776/82/03-CX and Rule 7(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. Another Tribunal decision in the case of CCE, Kanpur Vs. RHL Profiles Pvt. Ltd. further reinforced this stance. Additionally, a decision by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of Frontier Alloy Steel Ltd. favored the assessee based on similar circumstances. The judge highlighted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had issued a detailed order after thorough consideration of facts and legal issues, emphasizing that the Revenue failed to demonstrate any reversal of this decision by the Tribunal. Furthermore, the judge referenced a recent Tribunal decision in the case of SK Foils Ltd. Vs. CCE, Rohtak, which considered the legal position and precedent decisions, leading to the conclusion that there was no justification for denying credit to the appellants. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellants. The judgment was pronounced on 20.03.2014.
|
