9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 743X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bhopal confirming Cenvat credit demand of Rs. 17,44,200/- alongwith interest against appellant under Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11A and 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. 2. The facts of the case in brief leading to this appeal are, in brief, as under :- The appellant in their factory in Distt. Raisen (M.P.) are engaged in the manufacture of Mosquito Repellant Coils for which they require an input - a chemical called Esbiothrin Technical [d-trans Allethrin]. During period from 30-7-02 to 8-1-03, this chemical was acquired by the appellant from M/s. SC Enviro Agro India Pvt. Ltd., a second stage dealer through M/s. Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts for taking Cenvat credit, that in this case, there is no dispute about the fact that the invoices have been issued by M/s. SC Enviro Agro India Pvt. Ltd. who are a second stage dealer, that, in view of this, Cenvat credit cannot be denied just because the goods had been procured by the appellant through a third person M/s. Sumitomo Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. as the invoice clearly mentions the appellant as the consignee, that there is no dispute about the receipt of the inputs by the appellant and the duty paid character of the goods, and that Tribunal in the case of Prakash Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay reported in 1996 (85) E.L.T. 149 (Tri.-Bom.) has held that when the inputs were received by an assessee from a trader, who, in turn, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ltd., the goods have been purchased through a third stage dealer and hence Cenvat credit is not available to the appellant. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and have pursued the records. There is no dispute about the fact that the goods have been procured by the appellant through M/s. Sumitomo Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. However, from the records, it is seen that M/s. Sumitomo Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. had placed the order for the goods with M/s. SC Enviro Agro India Pvt. Ltd., a second stage dealer who supplied the goods directly under their invoices to the appellant, mentioning the appellant s name as the consignee while at the same time mentioning M/s. Sumitomo Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. as the custome ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 223 (Tri.-Bom.) and Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai reported in 2003 (161) E.L.T. 710 (Tri.-Chennai). In this case it is not the case of the Department that the goods were not received directly by the appellant from a second stage dealer M/s. SC Enviro Agro India Pvt. Ltd. In view of these circumstances, just because the invoices issued by M/s. SC Enviro Agro India Pvt. Ltd. mention M/s. Sumitomo Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. as the customer, while at the same time mentioning the appellant as the consignee, will not become invalid document for taking Cenvat credit, we therefore, hold that the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (Pronounced in open court on 26-5-2009) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
