9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1824 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - Held that - The main grievance of the Revenue is that the Bill of Entry was in the name of M/s. J.J. Polyplast, Daman who had surrendered the registration on 01.6.2005 and they have not issued the invoices. On perusal of the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) as mentioned above, I find that there is no dispute that the Respondent availed CENVAT credit on the basis of the invoices issued by M/s. J.J. Polyplast, Bhiwandi a sister unit of M/s. J.J. Polyplast, Daman who was a registered during the material time. The Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly recorded that there is no dispute as regards the receipt and utilisation of the inputs in the final product. It is also seen that the Respondent has availed credit on the basis of proper Central Excise invoices and therefore, there is no reason to deny the CENVAT credit to the Respondent. - No reason to interfere with the order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Appeal against order setting aside adjudication order denying CENVAT credit - Allegations regarding importation and eligibility of credit based on Bill of Entry - Dispute over invoices issued by different units of the same company - Commissioner (Appeals) findings supporting Respondent's availing of CENVAT credit - Revenue's grievance over Bill of Entry ownership and issuance of invoices. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD was filed by the Revenue challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that set aside the adjudication order denying CENVAT credit to the Respondent. The Respondent was engaged in manufacturing Telephone Cables falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The adjudicating authority had denied CENVAT credit amounting to &8377;5,82,375/- along with interest and imposed a penalty. The dispute arose from the importation of goods under a specific Bill of Entry by M/s. J.J. Polyplast Limited, Daman, a registered dealer with the Central Excise department, who later surrendered their registration certificate. The Respondent availed CENVAT credit based on invoices issued by M/s. J.J. Polyplast, Bhiwadi, a sister unit of M/s. J.J. Polyplast, Daman. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order, prompting the Revenue's appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) found merit in the Respondent's plea, emphasizing that the goods in question were duty paid and duly delivered to the registered premises of M/s. J.J. Polyplast Limited in Mumbai. Despite procedural discrepancies regarding the ownership of the Bill of Entry and the issuance of invoices, the Commissioner highlighted that substantive benefits should not be denied for minor infractions. The documents required for availing CENVAT credit were deemed appropriate, and the duty paid nature of the goods was not in doubt. The Commissioner concluded that the Respondent rightfully availed the credit based on valid invoices and passed on the credit to the appellant. The main grievance of the Revenue centered around the ownership of the Bill of Entry and the issuance of invoices by different units of the same company. However, the Tribunal noted that the Respondent availed CENVAT credit based on proper Central Excise invoices issued by M/s. J.J. Polyplast, Bhiwandi, a registered dealer during the relevant period. The Commissioner (Appeals) had explicitly acknowledged the receipt and utilization of inputs in the final product by the Respondent, thereby supporting the legitimacy of the credit availed. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's findings and rejected the Revenue's appeal, thereby disposing of the Cross Objection filed by the Respondent. In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), emphasizing the validity of the CENVAT credit availed by the Respondent based on proper documentation and the legitimate transfer of credit within the company's units. The judgment underscores the importance of substantive compliance over minor procedural discrepancies in matters concerning the denial of benefits like CENVAT credit, ensuring fair treatment and adherence to established legal principles.
|
