9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by 25.5.2011 but did not produce the documents. The learned Commissioner noted this fact and was constrained to pass the impugned order on 30.5.2011. In this scenario, the plea of violation of natural justice raised before us by the learned consultant is untenable. One of the documents prescribed thereunder for the purpose of availment of CENVAT credit is an invoice issued by the importer of inputs/capital goods. In the present case, the appellant has not shown any such invoice having been issued by any of the so-called principal manufacturers under Rule-9 to enable the appellant to take CENVAT credit of CVD paid on the goods. It is for the adjudicating authority to consider this factual aspect also - This is a case fit for remand for d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of customs duties including CVD and had also procured similar inputs from indigenous sources on payment of excise duty. Both the streams of inputs were supplied to the appellant to be used in the manufacture of medicaments under loan licence agreements. It appears from the records that this dispatch of inputs to the appellant was effected under cover of relevant Bills of Entry (where the goods were procured by way of import) and invoices (where the goods were procured indigenously). It further appears that the Bills of Entry in the name of M/s Dr. Reddys Laboratories were endorsed in favour of the appellant to enable them to take CENVAT credit of the CVD paid on the goods. M/s Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. also made similar endors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accountant (who is also representing the appellant before us today) undertook to produce such documents by 25.5.2001. The learned Commissioner passed the impugned order on 30.5.2011 after noting inter alia that the requisite documents were not produced by the party. 4. The learned Superintendent(A.R.) submits that the plea of endorsement on Bills of Entry and invoices was not made before the adjudicating authority. It is submitted that such plea cannot be allowed to be raised at the appellate stage inasmuch as it is a purely factual plea. 5. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. The impugned order was passed by the learned Commissioner apparently after giving the party a reasonable opportunity of being personally heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on before the learned Commissioner. Today both sides have referred to Rule-9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and we have found that one of the documents prescribed thereunder for the purpose of availment of CENVAT credit is an invoice issued by the importer of inputs/capital goods. In the present case, the appellant has not shown any such invoice having been issued by any of the so-called principal manufacturers under Rule-9 to enable the appellant to take CENVAT credit of CVD paid on the goods. It is for the adjudicating authority to consider this factual aspect also. 6. In the totality of all the facts and circumstances of this case, we have found a case fit for remand for de novo adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order is set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
