Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (10) TMI 571

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to take CENVAT credit. On the issue of time bar, it is observed that the show cause notice was issued on 05.04.2010 for the period March 2005 to March 2007. No evidence could be brought on record that the main appellant and its Director were aware that inputs received was as a result of an activity not amounting to manufacture. The demand issued is clearly time barred as extended period is not imposable in this case and no penalties can be imposed upon the appellant. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. : E/639,640/2012 - ORDER No. A/10850-10851/2015 - Dated:- 22-6-2015 - Mr. H.K. Thakur, J. For Appellant : Shri Mayur Shroff, Advocate For Respondent : Shr J. Nair, Authorised Representative Per : Mr. H.K. Thaku .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was not entitled to take CENVAT credit. That the statement of Shri Hemant G. Modi, Director of the main appellant, recorded on 24.8.2009 and 15.3.2010 during investigation clearly convey that 16% CENVAT shown by M/s. SPPML was actually CVD for which credit was taken as such waste kraft paper was not eligible to exemption from CVD under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 01.3.2002. That both CVD and CENVAT were leviable at the rate of 16% ad-velorem. Learned Advocate relied upon the following case laws in support of his argument that CENVAT that credit can not be denied, at the time of taking credit when duty paid nature of the inputs was established:- (a) CCE, Mumbai-III vs. GKW Limited - [2014 (308) ELT 759 (Tri. Mumbai)] (b) CCE, Ah .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n of imported scrap and that the process of segregation of waste paper does not amount to manufacture. The crucial fact required to be seen is whether the main appellant should have enquired beyond the cenvatable document showing payment of duty that whether the inputs were due to the result of manufacture or not. It is observed from the case records that an assessee taking cenvat credit is not required to go beyond the cenvatable document to know as to how it has arisen. What input recipient is required to verify is that the supplier of raw material is genuine and proper duty is paid. In the present case, both the conditions are fulfilled. In the case of CCE Ahmedabad-III vs. Nahar Granites (supra) in Para 8 and 9 held as follows:- 8.I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... observed that if the department was of the opinion that the value of the final product was depressed, it could have charged the original manufacturer unit in under-invoicing their product. This was however, not done. Valuation was duly approved and the payment of duty was also accepted. The Tribunal further observed that We find absolutely no substance in the attempt of the learned Commissioner to convert a part of the duty so paid into deposit of duty. There is no legal basis for such presumption. The rules entitled the receipt manufacturer to avail of the benefit of the duty paid by the supplier manufacturer. A quantum of duty already determined by the jurisdictional officers of the supplier unit cannot be contested or challenged by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ved by the department and the payment of duty was also duly accepted. We find absolutely no substance in the attempt of the learned Commissioner to convert a part of the duty so paid into deposit of duty . There is no legal basis for such presumption. The rules entitled the receipt manufacturer to avail of the benefit of the duty paid by the supplier manufacturer. A quantum of duty already determined by the jurisdictional officers of the supplier unit cannot be contested or challenged by the officers in charge of recipient unit [2000 (38) RLT 179]. 5. In the present appeal also duty paid on the waste kraft paper was accepted by the officer Incharge of the supplier unit M/s. SPPML. Appellant was not expected to know beyond the facts tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates