9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 960X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ils such as correct name of appellant. However, we find that the appellant is now in a position to satisfy the Revenue authorities about the genuineness of each and every invoice involved in the present proceedings. It is also submitted before us that such a reconciliation statement backed by a Certificate from Chartered Accountant has been produced before the Adjudicating authority. However, the same does not appear to have been considered. We find that Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 provides for such eventualities - The rule vests the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner with the power to admit documents subject to verification. Similar issue decided in the case EUPEC-Welspun Coatings India Ltd. Vs. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Ranjan Khanna, DR for the Respondent ORDER The present appeal is directed against the order dated 21.12.2010 passed by the Commissioner New Delhi. The impugned order relates to disallowance of demand of Cenvat Credit to the tune of ₹ 64,85,023/- availed by the appellant. The reasons for disallowance are that the invoices based on which the Cenvat Credit has been availed are not in the name of the appellant. Some of the invoices are in the name of other divisions of the company and some others do not have the name of the company or its location. The appellant submits that they are a division of G.E. India Industrial Pvt. Ltd. Training division. Their office in Delhi houses not only the training division but also many ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tails such as correct name of appellant. However, we find that the appellant is now in a position to satisfy the Revenue authorities about the genuineness of each and every invoice involved in the present proceedings. It is also submitted before us that such a reconciliation statement backed by a Certificate from Chartered Accountant has been produced before the Adjudicating authority. However, the same does not appear to have been considered. We find that Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 provides for such eventualities. The relevant Rule 9(2) is reproduced below for ready reference: No CENVAT credit under sub-rule(1) shall be taken unless all the particulars as prescribed under the Central Excise Rules, 2002 or the Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9(2) provides that credit shall not be denied o the ground that the documents does not contain all the particulars required to be contained under these rules if the document contains details of payment of duty or service tax, description of the goods, assessable value, name and address of the factory of the receiver. Further, according to proviso to Rule 9(2) the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner can allow cenvat credit if he is satisfied that the duty has been paid and goods have been actually used. It is seen that in this case all these details except name and address of the factory on the bill of entry. The only omission is that instead of endorsing the bill of entry itself in the name of the assessee, the importer has issued separ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
