9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1683 - AT - Central ExciseAvailment of CENVAT Credit - Cenvat Credit was denied on the ground that the appellant had not purchased to goods directly from the registered dealer and received through the intermediaries - Held that - Advocate submits that the decision of Tribunal was upheld by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II vs Transformers & Rectifiers (India) Ltd 2012 (11) TMI 562 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . - Following the decision of the Tribunal in the appellant s own case, which is upheld by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court, the impugned order is set-aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal dismissed for non-prosecution. 2. Denial of CENVAT credit based on purchase from intermediaries. 3. Application of Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 4. Interpretation of ownership of inputs requirement. 5. Applicability of Circular No.218/52/96-CX. 6. Upholding of decision by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. Analysis: 1. The judgment dealt with the restoration of an appeal that was dismissed for non-prosecution. The applicant filed an application for restoration, which was granted after finding sufficient reason for recalling the order. The appeal was restored, and with the consent of both parties, taken up for hearing. 2. The case involved the denial of CENVAT credit to the appellant for purchasing goods through intermediaries instead of directly from a registered dealer. However, it was noted that there was no dispute regarding the receipt of inputs used in the final product's manufacture, duly recorded in the CENVAT account. The Tribunal's previous decision in a similar case favored the appellant, emphasizing the compliance with Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 3. Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was crucial in this judgment. The rule specifies that credit should be taken on an invoice issued by a 1st or 2nd stage dealer. The Tribunal found that the appellant had availed credit based on invoices from the 1st/2nd stage dealer, meeting all necessary details as required by the rule. The application of Rule 9 was pivotal in allowing the appeal. 4. The judgment discussed the interpretation of the ownership of inputs requirement, highlighting that ownership is not a legal prerequisite for availing CENVAT credit. It was emphasized that the crucial aspect is the receipt and utilization of goods for manufacturing purposes, rather than ownership, which supported the appellant's case. 5. The applicability of Circular No.218/52/96-CX was significant in this judgment. The circular issued by the Board covered situations similar to the appellant's case, providing guidance even with subsequent rule modifications. The principles underlying the availment of CENVAT credit remained consistent, and the circular was deemed applicable, further supporting the appellant's position. 6. The judgment referenced the decision upheld by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in a related case, providing additional legal backing to the Tribunal's decision. The High Court's affirmation of the Tribunal's decision added weight to the appellant's argument, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal and the ROA application filed by the appellant.
|
