9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he decision of Tribunal in the case of BAPL Industries Ltd. vs. CCE [2006 (1) TMI 6 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] is squarely applicable to the facts of present case, wherein it was held that such credit taken on the basis of manufacturer's own triplicate copy of invoice under which the final product was originally cleared. These invoices are invoices of input-manufacturer. Hence, it cannot be said that during the disputed period there is no provision of law for using triplicate copy for Cenvat purposes. Therefore, triplicate copy was valid for Cenvat purpose during the disputed period. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL No. E/70510/2016-EX[SM] - A/72253/2018-SM[BR] - Dated:- 19-4-2018 - Mr. Anil Choudhary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39/15.04.11 150092 Credit without documents TOTAL 2365464 3. It appeared to Revenue that Rule 9 of CCR, 2004 prescribes the documents on the basis of which credit shall be taken by the manufacturer or provider of output service as the case may be. The appellant is not in possession of any such document and accordingly the said Cenvat Credit of ₹ 23,65,464/- was proposed to be disallowed under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 and further penalty was also proposed. The SCN was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 26 June, 2015 by the Additional Commissioner confirming the proposed duty/ disallowance of Cenvat Credit alongwith equal am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and have rightly taken credit. The learned counsel further relies on the ruling of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of BAPL Industries Ltd. vs. CCE 2006 (198) ELT 587 (Tri.-Chennai) wherein under similar facts and circumstances it was held - such credit taken on the basis of manufacturer's own triplicate copy of invoice under which the final product was originally cleared. These invoices are invoices of input - manufacturer. Hence, it cannot be said that during the disputed period there is no provision of law for using triplicate copy for Cenvat purposes. Therefore, triplicate copy was valid for Cenvat purpose during the disputed period. It was further held that, by virtue o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
