9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taking of cenvat credit on the basis of the invoices issued by the unregistered manufacturer is not in conformity with the cenvat statute - whether, the credit can be denied on the ground that the supplier M/s. United Tobacco Co. at the time of supply of goods was not registered with the Central Excise Department, admitting the fact and the position that the NCCD was paid by the supplier, after getting itself registered with the Central Excise Department.? Held that: - Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 permits a manufacturer to take cenvat credit of various duties paid on the inputs and capital goods received in the factory. In clause (v) of Rule 3, it has been specified that National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) leviable und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10% ad-valorem was leviable on unbranded chewing tobacco. Since the supplier M/s United Tobacco Co. was governed under the SSI scheme, it entertained the bonafide belief that NCCD is not liable to be paid on removal of unbranded chewing tobacco. Therefore, the said supplier did not charge the Central Excise Duty in the invoices issued to the appellant. The jurisdictional Central Excise authorities initiated proceedings against the said supplier for recovery of non-paid amount of NCCD. Thereafter, the supplier deposited the NCCD amount and issued the supplementary invoice to the appellant, in terms of Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001. On the basis of supplementary invoices issued by the supplier, the appellant took cenvat credit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said Rules, supplementary invoice has been recognized as the valid document for taking Cenvat credit. In the present case, since the supplier of goods M/s. United Tobacco Co. has issued the supplementary invoice after getting itself registered with the Jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities, the requirement of the cenvat statute has been duly complied with. Since, duty paid character of the disputed goods, their receipt and utilization for the intended purpose have not been disputed by the Central Excise authorities, in my considered view, credit cannot be denied on the flimsy ground that at the time of supply of goods, the supplier was not registered with Central Excise Department. Thus, in view of the fact that NCCD amount paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
