Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (9) TMI 1199

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s issued for availing inadmissible Cenvat Credit on the basis of Triplicate copy of invoices during the period from February, 2008 to August, 2008. 2. The Adjudicating Authority disallowed the Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 28,19,809/- and ordered for recovery of the same along with interest and also imposed penalty of equal amount under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Penalty of equal amount has also been imposed on the other appellants under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Rule 15 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 3. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals filed by all the four appellants vide Order-in-Appeal No. 128- 131/RAN/20 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Name of Item, CENVAT credit amount, however, there is no change in other critical details like Name of Consignee, CETSH of Item, Truck No., Quantity, Date and Time of issue of invoice etc and as such the copy of such invoices held with them cannot be termed as fake in absence of any cogent evidence; that the department has not challenged the invoice number of manufacturer i.e. SAIL mentioned in their copy of invoices and thus the duty paid nature of goods have not been challenged. Regarding the second issue, the Ld. Consultant submitted that the other contention of the appellant no. 1 in respect of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 16,09,983/- is that they have received the inputs (goods) from the dealer on FOR basis with Triplicate copy as well as Or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ied upon in this regard stressing the point that they have taken reasonable care. 6. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 7. I find that M/s. H.P. Exim Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant No. 4) contended with respect to so called five fake invoices (Rs.5,37,235/-) that these are not fake invoices but are genuine invoices issued by them; that their old accountant left the job and the new accountant made mistakes in incorporating some of the information; that the accountant has written the details of other duty paid invoices of M/s. SAIL in lieu of the relevant invoices of SAIL; that the credit so passed is less than the availability as per manufacturer (SAIL) invoices; that all payment have been received by them from appellant no. 1 by chequ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntained the details of the manufacturer (SAIL) and duty details. M/s. H. P. Exim Pvt. Ltd. is a registered dealer and the stock is duty paid. These purchases have been made against the old stock prior to registration. It is not the Revenue's case that the input were not duty paid or were not received by them or do not stand utilized in the manufacture of final products. As such, denial of credit on the basis of discrepancies, which are treated as technical, is neither justified nor warranted. I also find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Courts and the Tribunal have consistently held that the quantum of duty being already determined by Jurisdictional Officers of the supplier, cannot be challenged at the recipient's end. In the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... receipt of inputs and use of inputs in the final product stood proved and as per clarification from the Board, credit could not be disallowed, once payment of duty and receipt and use of inputs was established. 4. Only contention raised is that there was a statutory requirement that invoice should have been issued by the dealer from the premises registered with the department. 5. This contention has no merit and over-looks the clarification by the Board itself in the circular relied upon by the Tribunal, namely, Circular No. 441/7/99 dated 23-2-99 as well as Notification No. 7/99-C.E. amending Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, to the effect that if the goods were received and payment of duty and use thereof was verifiable, cr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates