9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Held that: - the parent invoices was in fact for 850 kgs, and only by mistake the same has been mentioned as 275 kgs - denial of credit unjustified. The disallowance of credit for the reason that the quantity of inputs was received was not entered in Part-1 RG 23A register is also explained by the appellants, which according to us is acceptable and tenable. CENVAT credit denied also on the ground that the appellants have taken only less credit of ₹ 2,375/- against the duty paid to the tune of ₹ 2,500/- - Held that: - The same has been explained by the appellants stating that during the relevant period N/N. 14/90 permitted only 95% credit to be availed, Needless to say that disallowance of credit is unjustified. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/00022, 00023/2006 - 40987-40988 - Dated:- 12-6-2017 - Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member For the Appellant - Shri V. Panchanathan, Adv. For the Respondent - Shri S. Nagalingam, AC (AR) ORDER Per: Sulekha Beevi C.S., In the above appeals show-cause notices were issued raising several grounds disallowing the Modvat credit. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egistration but, however, subsequently they had dealer registration also. The learned counsel argued that when the receipt of input, the duty paid nature of the input as well as the use of the input in manufacture of products is not being disputed by the department, the Modvat credit cannot denied on procedural grounds alone. Further, that there are several High Court judgments which lay down that credit cannot be denied for the reason that dealer is not registered. He relied upon the judgment in the case of Vimal Enterprise Vs Union of India reported in - 2006 (195) E.L.T. 267 (Guj.) and submitted that though there was a Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal holding that Modvat credit is not admissible when the dealer has not taken registration the said proposition was reversed by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Vimal Enterprise (supra). Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III, Gurgaon Vs Myron Electricals Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2007 (207) E.L.T. 664 (P H) which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in 2007 (215) E.L.T. A. 76 (SC). (ii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid nature of the goods as well as amount paid by the appellant to the supplier not being in dispute, the credit cannot be denied. (iv) The credit of ₹ 5/- has been denied as Stock Transfer from Howrah to Pondicherry. The payment of ₹ 5 is on the ground that the invoice did not show the appellant's name as the consignee. The appellant received 500 ml sample paint from its another factory at Howrah which was supplied on payment of excise duty of ₹ 5. The invoice column showed name and address of the consignee as Pondicherry, meaning inter-Unit transfer. Therefore, the Modvat credit of ₹ 5 is not deniable. (v) The next ground alleged is that appellants did not make the corresponding entry in Part-1 RG 23A register. For a sum of ₹ 5,472/- is denied on the ground that the quantity of goods (inputs received is not entered in Par-I RG 23A register). The learned counsel explained that the appellant had received certain quantity of metal containers for paints. As the tins were found defective, these were returned to the supplier for repair and return. The supplier returned the goods under 'nil' duty invoice. The appellants had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elating to the appellants have utilized only 95% of credit, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that when the appellants have paid duty of ₹ 2,500/-, the credit ought to have been availed on the entire amount. 6. We have heard the submissions made by both side. Let us deal with each of the issues one by one. 6.1 The first one is regarding disallowance of credit on the ground that M/s. BPCL is not registered as a dealer . The registration certificate is furnished along with records. On perusal, it is seen that during the relevant period M/s. BPCL was given registration to cure, produce, manufacture, carry one wholesale trade/business/broker or commission agent or otherwise deal in excisable goods' . As per Rule 174, during the relevant period the dealer is required to take a registration and only upon such invoices issued by a registered dealer, the assessee can avail Modvat credit. It is submitted by the learned counsel that subsequently M/s. BPCL has obtained dealer registration also. It is brought out from the judgments placed before us, that the issue whether credit can be availed on invoices issued by unregistered dealers was subject-matter of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
