9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cribed document under the Rule 9 (1) (a) (iv) Cenvat credit Rules, 2004, therefore, it is clear that the appellants took the Cenvat credit on the basis of the proper documents as prescribed under the law - as assessee have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the inputs received by them are duty paid and have known their immediate supplier, the modvat credit cannot be denied on the ground that the person supplying the goods to the dealer-supplier was either not in existence or has not paid duty on the final product - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. 2982-2985/2011-EX[SM] - FINAL ORDER NO._50166-50169/2014 - Dated:- 13-1-2014 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, J. For the Appellant : Shri B.B. Sharma, DR For the Respondent : Shri Bi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the respondents by observing that the only reasons for denial of credit to the Respondent is that the dealer registration of M/s. Gaytri Traders stands revoked vide order in original in original dated 31.12.2009. However, he observed as under:- 10. In the matter, I observe that in the whole case it was not disputed by the department that:- i. the appellants had not received inputs on which they had taken Cenvat credit. ii. the documents on which they had taken Cenvat credit did not contain the specified particulars as prescribed under the Cenvat credit Rules, 2004. iii. the payment of central excise duty which has been shown on the said invoice had not been paid by manufacturer of the inputs. iv. the inputs on which Cenvat c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants have not maintained proper records of the said inputs as mentioned above and further also I observe that the appellants have received the goods on the invoices of the M/s. Harsh Company, 292, Chandpol Bazar, Jaipur, they have received the quantity mentioned in the invoice in their unit and have made payments through cheques thereafter. On the contrary department have not disputed that the goods were not received by the Appellants and it was only a paper transaction. Thus it is clear that this mode of transactions was bona fide on part of appellants, in this circumstances it has been accepted that buyer can take only those steps which are in their control. He is not expected to verify records of supplier to check whether in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the Tribunal laying down that inasmuch as assessees have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the inputs received by them are duty paid and have known their immediate supplier, the modvat credit cannot be denied on the ground that the person supplying the goods to the dealer-supplier was either not in existence or has not paid duty on the final product. The Tribunal in the case of M/s. R.S Industries Vs. CCE, New Delhi 2003 (153) ELT 114 (CEGAT) has held that the buyer is not responsible for misconduct of supplier and he has entitled to Cenvat credit on basis of a valid duty pauing document. The said judgment was upheld by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi reported as CCE, Vs. R.S. Industries 2008 (228) ELT 347 (Del.). Similarly, C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
