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 (7) TMI 1927

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the evidences on record, similar show cause notice was issued to the Kutch unit of Manaksia Ltd. at Gujarat alleging wrong availment of cenvat credit - Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Excise and Customs Vs. Manaksia Limited [2010 (4) TMI 1046 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has held that even if the alternator may have been manufactured at Delhi as contended by the revenue, as long as the duty liability of such alternator had been discharged by the supplier, entitlement of the respondent company to avail of CENVAT credit in respect of the duty paid on the capital goods in question cannot be disputed. In the instant case also there is no dispute that the subject machineries were received at the appellant s factory at Barjo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al Excise Act, 1944, along with interest thereon and imposing penalty of an equivalent amount upon the appellant under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. 2. The facts, in brief, are that during the investigation conducted by the DGCEI authorities in respect of the allegation of evasion of Central Excise Duty by one Ishaan Technologies Private Limited, Byrnihat, Meghalaya, it was observed that Ishaan Tech. Pvt. Ltd. had misused Notification No. 32/99-CE dated 8.7.1999 in not actually manufacturing any excisable goods in its factory premises, situated in the specified area under the said Notification. Further, by resorting to gross over-invoicin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... confirmed by the impugned order of the Commissioner 3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that similar show cause notice was issued to the appellant's unit in Kutch, Gujarat, wherein similar allegations, based on same investigation and evidences, were made in respect of 10 MW Alternator supplied by Ishaan Technologies Private Limited to the said unit of the appellant. The said show cause notice and the demand made therein was confirmed by a final order dated March 30, 2007 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot. However, the appeal of the assessee against the said adjudication order was allowed by Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal by an order dated 24th June, 2008, reported in 2008 (232) ELT 497 (Tri-Ahmd) [Manaksia Limited V .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t (supra) the relevant facts, in brief, set out therein, are as follows:- (a) M/s Manaksia Ltd., the main appellant placed an order with M/s Ishaan Technologies P. Ltd. (ITPL, for short) for 10 MW Slow speed alternator with AVRS and Voltage Control System. (b) M/s Manaksia Ltd. received the said system under Invoice No.2 dt.12.4.03 issued by ITPL, showing the value of the consignment as ₹ 5,50,00,000/- and the amount of duty paid as ₹ 88 lakhs and based on the said document took the cenvat credit of the same amount. (c) According to the investigations by the department, the alternator was not manufactured by ITPL and therefore, there was no clearance of the aforesaid capital goods under the invoice issued by ITPL based on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the facts of the present case, the Tribunal has found that it is an undisputed position that the respondent Company had received the alternator which was consigned; that no evidence had been produced that the supplier had not paid the duty; that receipt of goods was also not disputed. According to the Tribunal, as long as the amount of duty as indicated in the duty paying document had been paid and as long as the inputs/capital goods which are indicated in the duty paying documents are received by the assessee, the CENVAT credit cannot be denied. Besides, it is not even the Department's case that the assessee has not received the goods accompanied by duty paid documents or that the respondent assessee has availed of higher credit than .....

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