9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 245 - AT - Central ExciseRecovery of Cenvat credit wrongly availed by the Appellant - DFT copy of invoices recd. from Telco-Pimpri, which was submitted earlier by their letter dated 16.11.2000 - Credit availed without invoice - Credit availed on other than DFT copy of invoice - Modvat availed on the basis of Certificate A - Misc. Discrepancies - penalty. DFT copy of invoices recd. from Telco-Pimpri, which was submitted earlier by their letter dated 16.11.2000 of Rs.15,31,074/- - HELD THAT - The impugned order is beyond the remand direction as well as the scope of the previous Order-in-Original, which merely denied the credit for non-submission of letter, which has been provided by the Appellant before Denovo adjudication. Regarding eligibility of this credit, it is observed that the Duplicate copy of invoice produced by the Appellant clearly indicate the receipt of the goods into the factory - the appellant has rightly availed the credit. Subsequently, they have cleared the inputs to HV Axles Ltd as such on reversal of the same credit availed at the time of its receipt - there is no infirmity in the initial availment of the credit and its subsequent clearance as such on reversal of the credit availed. Accordingly, the denial of credit of Rs 15,31,074/- is not sustainable. Credit availed without invoice of Rs.19,91,913/- - Credit availed on other than DFT copy of invoice of Rs.5,33,208/- HELD THAT - The denial credit on this ground is beyond the remand direction as well as the scope of the previous Order-in-Original, which merely denied the credit for nonsubmission of letter, which has been provided before the denovo adjudication - Once the remand direction clearly stated that during the relevant period there was no requirement to produce the original copies for defacement, the insistence on the production of the same or denial the credit on the basis that the Appellant did not produce DFT copy of the invoice, for availing the credit is legally not tenable. Even legally, there was no requirement during the relevant period to avail credit only on the DFT copy of the invoice, as evident from the provisions of amended Section 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, w.e.f. 01.04.2000. Rule 57AC or Rule 57AE also never provided for such a requirement. Rather, even preamendment, Rule 57G(6) always allowed the assessees to avail credit on the basis of original copy of the invoice if there is no dispute about the receipt of goods in the factory. Inasmuch as there is no dispute on the duty paid character and receipt of goods in the factory, the credit cannot be denied on this count. During the material period there was no requirement of submitting the Transporter's copy to avail the credit. Since that requirement has been done away with in the Rule, the credit can be availed on the basis of any other valid document such as original copy or Triplicate copy also. Accordingly, the denial of credit on this count in the impugned order is not sustainable. Modvat availed on the basis of Certificate A of Rs.89,641/- - denial on the ground that the said credit was availed on the basis of Certificate A issued by the jurisdictional superintendent certifying the payment for Rs. 89,641/- as differential duty on certain invoices produced - HELD THAT - The credit on this count has been held to be admissible as per the remand order of Tribunal, Kolkata. The Appelant stated that the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MADRAS VERSUS HOME ASHOK LEYLAND LTD. 2007 (3) TMI 257 - SUPREME COURT is squarely applicable to them - It is observed that Certificate A issued by the Superintendent certifying the additional duty payment is a valid document to allow the credit. The decision cited by the Appellant squarely applicable in this case. By following the decision cited, and the Tribunal s direction in the earlier order, the credit cannot be denied on this count. Misc. Discrepancies of Rs.1775/- - HELD THAT - There is no specific finding on this count in the impugned order for denying this credit. Accordingly, the credit of Rs 1775/- allowed. Penalty - HELD THAT - Since, the credit has been taken correctly, no penalty imposable on the Appellant. The appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed.
Issues Involved:
Recovery of wrongly availed Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.3.39 Crore during April 2000 to July 2000, denial of credit amounting to Rs.2.57 Crore by the Commissioner, and subsequent appeal challenging the denial of credit. Summary: The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, remanding the case for fresh decision on the disallowance of credit amounting to Rs.41,47,609/-. The Appellant challenged the denial of Cenvat credit of Rs.41,47,609/- along with interest and penalty in the present appeal. Regarding the disallowed Cenvat credit categories: 1. Cenvat credit of Rs.15,31,074/- was initially denied for non-submission of a letter, but the Appellant had provided the required documentation. The denial based on goods transfer to another entity was deemed beyond the remand direction and not legally tenable. 2. Cenvat credit of Rs.19,91,913/- + Rs.5,33,208/- was denied for using original instead of duplicate invoices, which was considered procedurally incorrect as there was no such requirement during the relevant period. 3. Cenvat credit of Rs.89,641/- based on Certificate A was wrongly denied, as it was a valid document for credit availment as per Tribunal's remand order and applicable legal precedent. 4. Miscellaneous discrepancies amounting to Rs.1775/- had no specific finding for denial, hence the credit was allowed. The Tribunal held that the denial of Cenvat credit totaling Rs.41,47,609/- was not sustainable, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the credit without imposing any penalty on the Appellant. The appeal was allowed in favor of the Appellant.
|
