9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... export market by the appellants on payment of duty; there is no finding that the claim of the appellants that the products were sold at much higher price and therefore the CENVAT credit availed by them had been completely reversed is wrong; there is no finding that there was actually no clearances of the finished goods to the customers. Purchase order is not statutory document and in the absence of it being a statutory requirement even if the purchase order is not there, the appellant cannot be found fault with if they had sold the goods and in the absence of any finding that the goods have not been sold or the documents shown regarding sale were fictitious /bogus and in the absence of finding that the goods were not manufactured by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from EOU to DTA. 2. The CENVAT Credit has been held to be inadmissible and the learned Commissioner has denied the claim on the following grounds:- i. The claim of the appellants that intermediates and finished goods on which duty is paid on debonding the 100% EOU, having subsequently been used as inputs in further manufacture are captively consumed goods and hence duty paid thereon is eligible for credit, was denied on the basis that in continuous process, the intermediate goods generally will not attain dutiable nature. ii The intermediate products unless cleared to other unit on payment of appropriate duty for use in the final product cannot have the command to transfer CENVAT credit on account of value en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nadvertently and paid duty on finished goods and intermediate goods. After the unit was converted to DTA, the items or goods which were declared as finished goods were used as inputs and sold in the domestic market and in some cases exported also. In respect of both, intermediate goods credit as well as finished goods credit have been disallowed on the ground that appellants had made a false declaration when they said that they had actually processed the finished goods. The appellants had produced, according to the learned counsel, flow chart or the nature of processing undertaken in respect of each of the intermediate/finished goods and the corresponding invoices under which the goods were cleared to the domestic market or export. Only on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants had made a declaration that they were transferring the finished goods at the time of conversion, it cannot be said that they became disentitled to CENVAT credit. According to CENVAT Credit Rules, what is required to be shown by the assessee is that duty has been paid on the goods claimed as inputs; inputs have been received in the factory; accounted for; used in the manufacture of finished products; finished products have been cleared on payment of duty. There is no categorical finding in all these issues in the impugned order. Further there are also decisions of the Tribunal taking a view that even when no manufacturing process is undertaken, if the goods are removed as such and CENVAT credit was prima facie not admissible, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
