Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 226 - AT - Central ExciseDisallowance of Cenvat or modvat credit - credit availed after more than 6 months of the date of document - Held that - The appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit and the same cannot be denied on the ground that Cenvat credit have been availed after more than 6 months of the date of document, as the documents are dated prior to 26/06/95 when the period of 6 months was introduced. It have also been so held by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghuvar (India) Ltd. (2000 (5) TMI 40 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ). So far the credit on bill of entry/IGM number 1239/23 dated 2/5/94 is concerned as find that although there is some discrepancy in documents and/or some document is missing, it is admitted fact by the revenue that the appellant have received the goods in question. Accordingly, remand this issue for re-determination to the adjudicating authority. The appellant is also directed to appear before the authority within a period of 75 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with all supportings. They want to rely and seek an opportunity of hearing.
Issues:
1. Availment of modvat credit benefit on invoices. 2. Denial of credit based on time limits for availing Cenvat or modvat credit. 3. Disallowance of credit on specific bill of entry numbers. 4. Validity of taking credit against bill of entry not in the name of the appellant. 5. Applicability of rules regarding registration for dealers in claiming credit. 6. Validity of invoices for availing Cenvat credit. 7. Relevance of previous rulings in similar cases. Issue 1: Availment of modvat credit benefit on invoices The appellant, a manufacturer of metal containers, availed modvat credit benefit on 12 items/invoices during May and June 1994, leading to a dispute. The Tribunal remanded the case due to deficiencies in the adjudication order. Issue 2: Denial of credit based on time limits for availing Cenvat or modvat credit The Asstt. Commissioner allowed credit on some items but denied on others citing the six-month limit under the Central Excise Act for availing Cenvat or modvat credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial based on the reasonable time requirement for availing modvat credit. Issue 3: Disallowance of credit on specific bill of entry numbers Credit was disallowed on certain bill of entry numbers due to delays in availing credit after the issue of documents or lack of proper endorsement, as observed by the authorities. Issue 4: Validity of taking credit against bill of entry not in the name of the appellant The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance of credit against a bill of entry not in the appellant's name or endorsed in their favor, emphasizing the necessity of proper documentation for availing credit. Issue 5: Applicability of rules regarding registration for dealers in claiming credit The Revenue argued that credit could not be taken on unendorsed bill of entries post a specific date when registration for dealers became mandatory, as per relevant notifications and instructions. Issue 6: Validity of invoices for availing Cenvat credit The Revenue relied on rulings emphasizing the requirement for invoices to be in the name of the manufacturer availing credit, highlighting procedural and mandatory aspects post specific notifications. Issue 7: Relevance of previous rulings in similar cases The appellant argued against the applicability of certain rulings based on the timing and context of the cases cited, seeking distinctions from the present matter. In the final judgment, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and remanded it in part. It held that the appellant was entitled to Cenvat credit despite the time lapse as the documents predated the introduction of the six-month limit. The Tribunal also remanded the issue concerning a specific bill of entry/IGM number for re-determination due to discrepancies, directing the appellant to provide necessary supportings within a specified timeframe for further adjudication.
|