9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 793X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Ltd., on the basis of duty paid on the said C.P.Ts. by said suppliers of C.P.T. SPPL were taking Cenvat Credit under relevant Cenvat Credit Rules. The suppliers of C.P.Ts. allowed discount post clearance and issued credit notes to SPPL, as a result, the assessable value of the inputs received was altered, at the end of the manufactures of the inputs. It appeared to Revenue that due to such alteration or reduction of assessable value of inputs at the end of the manufactures of inputs, Cenvat Credit availed by SPPL needs to be accordingly reduced. For recovery of such Cenvat Credit, which appeared to be inadmissible, show cause notice No. C No.V(15)Adj/Noida/Super Plastronics /35/06/2289 dated 13.2.2007 was issued to SPPL calling upon them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules, 3, 4 & 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001, it is not the case of the Department that SPPL - respondent did not receive the inputs i.e. C.P.Ts., nor the duty was not paid on the inputs, nor the required documents were not available with them. The C.P.Ts. manufacturers have paid duty on C.P.Ts. on the basis of agreed upon prices prevailing at the time of clearance of the goods and duty so paid was availed as credit and there was no violation of any of the Rules of Cenvat Credit Rules. 3. The learned D.R. for the Revenue has argued that the circular No. 877/15/08-Cus is of date 17/11/2008 and there is no mention in the circular that it has got retrospective effect, transactions in 9 dispute is for the period April 2002 to March 2006. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allows some trade discount or reduces the price, without reducing the duty paid by him. 2. The issue has been examined. Since, the discount in such cases are given in respect of the value of inputs and not in respect of the duty paid by the supplier, the effect of reduction of value of inputs may be that the duty required to be paid on the inputs was less than what has been actually paid by the inputs manufacturer. However, the fact remains that the inputs manufacturer had paid the higher duty. Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 allows credit of duty "paid" by the inputs manufacturer and not duty "payable" by the said manufacturer. There are many judgements of Hon'ble Tribunal in this regard which have confirmed this view. 3. In vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
