9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant; it was in their former name. There is nothing in the rules which disentitles an assessee to avail CENVAT Credit if they change their name and the invoice is in their former name. In fact, it is also not required for the invoice to be in the name of the assessee as long as the goods in question are received and used. In the case of mergers/acquisitions for instance, the assets and liabilities gets transferred to the successor entity while the invoices will be in the name of the predecessor entity. This itself would not be a ground to deny them CENVAT Credit. Similarly in case of job work, the inputs might have been used by the job worker but the invoice might have been raised in the name of the principal who purchased the goods, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en by them and the same is not required to be reversed. Time limitation - Held that:- The credit was taken in January 2014 to April 2014 and the audit was conducted the next month i.e. May 2014 during which this issue was pointed out as a discrepancy but the show cause notice was issued only on 29.06.2016 or beyond the normal period of limitation when the department was fully aware of the sequences of events - the entire demand is also hit by limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/30761/2018 - A/30438/2019 - Dated:- 28-3-2019 - Mr. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri G. Prahlad, Advocate for the appellant Shri Arun Kumar, Jt. Commissioner/AR for the Respondent. ORDER 1. This appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and used them in the process of manufacture of cement and have not diverted them. In support, they submitted extract of their stock register, LR copy, weighment slip, packing list, capital goods ledger and depreciation extract. In 2016, a show cause notice was issued seeking to deny credit on this invoice, on the following grounds:- a) The invoice was raised in the name of Raghuram Cements Limited and not in the name of the appellant. b) The credit was availed on a copy of the invoice and not on the original invoice. c) No corroborative evidence or proof has been put forth regarding receipt of the goods and their installation. d) In the same year 2014, they have availed the entire capital goods credit in violation of Rule 4(2)( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on itself. Simply because they changed their name from Raghuram Cements Limited to Bharathi Cement Corporation Private Limited, they do not get disentitled to avail CENVAT Credit on capital goods which they had received and installed in their factory. There is no evidence, whatsoever, on record that they have not received the goods or that they have not installed the same for manufacture of final products. Further, the Central Excise Registration number itself is the same which shows that the department was fully aware at every stage that it is the same entity which changed their name. Otherwise, the department would have issued a new Central Excise registration number to a different entity. Therefore, they cannot be denied the credit of CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no requirement of submission of copies of invoices alongwith ER returns and therefore they have not suppressed any facts. Therefore, the show cause notice issued in June 2016 needs to be set aside on this ground also. 6. Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the lower authority and argues that CENVAT credit can be availed only on the strength of the document indicated in Rule 9 of CCR 2004. A photocopy of the invoice is not a valid document for availing CENVAT Credit. 7. I have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records. This is a rather unusual case where the assessee lost the invoice of capital goods purchased in 2008. Thereafter, they changed the name and constitution of their company twice. Each time, on their req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, find no reason to deny the CENVAT Credit on the ground that the invoice is issued in the name of a different company. 8. The second objection is that the CENVAT Credit has been taken after a gap of six years and I do not find any time limit within which the CENVAT credit of capital goods has to be taken. For instance, if a particular line of a plant is used exclusively for manufacture of exempted goods, when installed, the assessee may not avail the CENVAT Credit on capital goods. Subsequently, if the assessee uses the same line for manufacture of dutiable goods, he will be entitled to take CENVAT Credit on capital goods on this line. There is no limit of demand within which the capital goods credit can be taken or the time within wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
