2017 (9) TMI 259

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llant - both authorities below has not extended the benefit of discharging 25% of the penalty imposed subject to fulfilment of the conditions laid down under the relevant provisions, namely, Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Rule 15 of the CCR, 2004. Accordingly, the Appellant could avail the benefit of discharging 25% of the penalty imposed subject to fulfilment of the conditions lai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vat credit on capital goods, namely, Front End Loader on the basis of the Pro-forma Invoices issued by one M/s. GMMCO Limited, Ahmedabad. Alleging that the Cenvat credit on the said Pro-forma Invoice is not admissible, a show cause notice was issued to them for recovery of the credit of ₹ 3,79,246/- availed and utilized with proposal for penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e that on the basis of proforma Invoice, Cenvat credit cannot be admissible to the Appellant since the proforma Invoice is not a prescribed document under Rule 9 of the CCR, 2004. I find force in the contention of the Revenue. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision reveals that proforma Invoice is not a prescribed document for allowing Cenvat credit. Therefore, Cenvat credit on the said capita .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X