9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les 2004 provides a manufacturer shall be allowed to take credit the specified duty as mentioned therein, on any input received in the factory of manufacturer. In the present case, the appellant availed credit on the basis of invoice issued under Rule 9 of the said Rules. There is no dispute that the input received in the factory of the appellant. In any event, the manufacturer of input supplied the goods in DTA. Thus, there is no scope to use the documents by the overseas company. So, the denial of cenvat Credit is not justified. Appellants name was mentioned in the invoices and the goods were delivered at the appellant s factory and the cenvat credit was availed on the basis of invoices as mentioned under Rule 9 of Rules 2004 and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2005 to July 2005. It has been alleged that the appellant availed Cenvat Credit on the basis of the invoices, which are not valid documents in terms of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rule 2004. It has further been alleged that as per Rule 3 read with Rule 9 of the said Rule 2004, Cenvat Credit is available only to the person, to whom the goods have been sold by the manufacturer and not to any other person. It is mandatory that the person in whose name the invoice has been issued, can take credit. The Adjudicating Authority disallowed the cenvat credit of ₹ 14,34,980/- alongwith interest and also imposed penalty of equal amount of Cenvat Credit under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ld Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the appellant purchased the goods from the Dubai companies and the invoices were issued in their name. Rule 9 of the Rules 2004 clearly stipulates that credit would be eligible on the basis of invoices issued by the manufacture of inputs, who had purchased the goods. It is submitted that in some cases payment of duty has made by the appellant himself to the supplier of the ingots. 5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the appellant purchased the Brass Ingots from the Dubai Company, who placed the orders to M/s Mitesh Impex, a 100% EOU, supplied the goods to the appellant in D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turer. In the present case, the appellant availed credit on the basis of invoice issued under Rule 9 of the said Rules. There is no dispute that the input received in the factory of the appellant. In any event, the manufacturer of input supplied the goods in DTA. Thus, there is no scope to use the documents by the overseas company. So, the denial of cenvat Credit is not justified. 7. The Tribunal, in the case of M/s Mahadev Industries (supra) held that double set of names and addresses on the invoices not bar availing modvat credit when the basic character of the invoices as a central excise duty paying document by describing the product recording the amount of duty paid and indicating the consignment to whom goods dispatched satisfied. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lved in the decisions cited by the ld. Advocate on this issue as noted above would also apply in this case. In the case of M/s. S.S.P.E. Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. supra, there was similarly no dispute that duty paid goods actually received in the factory and were used therein and that the invoices contained the dealer s name as well as the recipient assessee s name as the goods were purchased through the dealer but directly supplied to the assessee s factory. The only difference between this fact and the fact in the present case is that here the goods were received not through a dealer, but through a buyer, namely the Railways, but that the goods in both the cases were directly despatched by the manufacturing factory to the end user. As long as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat Modvat credit cannot be denied to the appellants. 8. In view of the above discussion, I find that the appellants name was mentioned in the invoices and the goods were delivered at the appellant s factory and the cenvat credit was availed on the basis of invoices as mentioned under Rule 9 of Rules 2004 and the input utilized in the manufacture of final product. There is no dispute that the entire consignment was received by the appellant. So, there is no reason to deny the cenvat credit to the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed with consequential relief. The appellant filed Miscellaneous Application for additional evidence is disposed of. (Pronounced in the open co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
