9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, 2002 and Rule 3 (5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner was also asked to get the necessary verification done from the concerned Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner of the CGST Division having jurisdiction over the supplier of the goods namely M/s Honda Cars India Ltd. and to report whether the removal of the goods by M/s Honda Cars India Ltd. covered by these invoices were imported goods and duty passed on by them were in accordance with the Rule 3 (5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. There is no denial of the fact that the supplier of the components/parts to the appellants have imported the same on payment of countervailing duty and the supplier M/s Honda Cars India Ltd. has taken credit of the ADC which was being paid by them at the time of import. These components/parts have been cleared by M/s Honda Cars India Ltd. to the appellant on payment of central excise duty leviable on such components/ parts by debiting the same from the credits of the ADC paid by them at the time of import - It has been verified by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over M/s Honda Cars India Ltd. that credits has been availed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty on the auto parts supplied by them to the appellant. On the basis of this premise, a show cause notice dated 17 April 2015 was issued whereunder it has been asked as to why Cenvat credit of ₹ 4,57,11,221/- should not be recovered from them as per the provision of Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 readwith Section 11A (4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, interest and penal provisions have also been invoked in the show cause notice. The matter got adjudicated vide order-in-original No. ALW/EXCUS/OIO/COM/025/16-17 dated 24 June 2016 whereunder all the charges as alleged in the show cause notice has been confirmed by the learned Adjudicating Authority. The appellant have preferred an appeal No. E/52614 of 2016 - DB before this Tribunal, which was decided by the final order No. 50131 of 2018 dated 8 January 2018 by this Tribunal. This Tribunal vide final order dated 8 January 2018 has passed the following order :- "7. During the course of argument, the learned Counsel tried to produce invoices and other material. The learned Departmental Representative says that it is not the forum to examine the same and matter should be remanded for proper examination of all the documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Adjudicating Authority namely Commissioner had forwarded the invoices submitted by the appellant to the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to verify the genuineness and also got the verification of the same done by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of the supplier of the goods namely M/s Honda Cars India Ltd. It has been submitted that the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner has sent a verification report vide a letter dated 3 December 2018 wherein it has categorically been reported that invoices issued by the supplier of the goods namely M/s Honda Cars India Ltd. and on the strength of which the assessee has availed the Cenvat credit of additional duty of customs during the period April 2010 to January 2015 were genuine. It has further been reported that so far as the question of the removal of goods by the supplier to the appellant under the cover of their 125 invoices the duty passed on by the supplier was in accordance with the Rule 3 (5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The learned Advocate has tried to emphasize that the Assistant Commissioner has verified the genuineness of credit availed and has categorically submitted that there is no violation of the Cenvat Cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shp Vihar, Saket, New Delhi Commissionerate : LTU Delhi Name of Consignee Yutaka Auto Parts India Private Limited Description of Goods Catalyst 18165-RE2-E010-Y3 Classification of Goods 8708.99 Time and Date of Removal 19/03/2013 at 12:30 Mode of transport & Vehicle Registration HR 38 N 1008 Rate of duty 12% Quantity & Value of Goods and duty payable thereon. Quantity - 3120 Value - 88,20,240 Duty - 10,58,429 7. It has further been contended that it is wrong on the part of the Commissioner to deny the appellant Cenvat credit on the ground that invoices do not mention the fact that the goods were imported by M/s Honda Cars India Ltd. It has further been mentioned that no such condition under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules which requires the supplier to mention the nature of the source of the goods being supplied by them. It has further been emphasized that when there is no dispute regarding payment of duty on the auto parts supplied by M/s Honda Cars India Ltd. to the appellant and fact that these auto-parts have been received and used by the appellant in manufacture of his final excisable product the Cenvat credit to the appellant cannot be denied. The non-mention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oida - 2014 (300) E.L.T. 451 (Tri. - Del.) ; (ii) CCE, Noida versus Accurate Chemical Industries - 2014 (310) E.L.T. 441 (All.) and (iii) Gulab Gundhi Tobacco Co. & Ors. versus CCE, Delhi - I Final order No. 55737-42 of 2017 dated 07/08/2017. 9. We have also heard learned Departmental Representative who has reiterated the findings as given in the order-in-original. 10. Having heard both the sides and on perusal of record of the appeal, we find that the learned Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order-in-original has denied Cenvat credit of ₹ 4.57 crores involving in total 125 invoices issued during the period April 2010 to January 2015 primarily on the following grounds :- "(i) that the column specified for mention of the nature of the duty in the invoice does not have a mention that the components/parts supplied by M/s Honda Cars India Ltd. to the appellant the central excise duty on the same has been paid from additional duty of customs paid by the supplier at the time of import of these components ; (ii) that the supplier has not complied with the provisions of Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 as the details of the imports was not found mentioned in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted goods and duty passed on by them were in accordance with the Rule 3 (5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 13. It is a matter of record that the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide his letter dated 3 December 2018 reported that the invoices supplied by the supplier of the components/ parts M/s Honda Cars India Ltd. and on the strength of which the appellant have availed Cenvat credit of additional duty of customs during the period April 2010 to January 2015 were genuine invoices. It has further been reported that the goods removed by the supplier to the appellant under cover of 125 invoices in total were imported goods and duty passed on were in accordance with the Rule 3 (5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The officer has further added that after verification the Divisional Office of the jurisdiction over M/s Honda Cars India Ltd. has informed vide its report dated 22 November 2018 that as per ER-1 returns filed for the period April 2010 to January 2015 has utilized credit on input goods when removed as such amounting to ₹ 21,99,72,170/- during the period April 2010 to January 2015. Thus, it can be seen from the report that the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iate amount of central excise duty has been paid on such clearances and subsequently the appellant have taken the Cenvat credit of the same. 16. It is a matter of record that the verification undertaken by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner categorically reports that the duty has been paid by the supplier after debiting the credits of the additional duty of customs. There is no dispute of the fact that the duty which is indicated on the invoices has been paid by the appellant to the supplier of the goods. There is also no dispute that the inputs which are mentioned in the invoices have been received and utilized in the manufacture of excisable goods. After analyzing all the facts we are of the opinion that the invoices on the strength of which the inputs have been removed contain all the details as are required under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. We find that there is complete transparency from both side that is, from the supplier side and on the part of the appellant, on supply of inputs and their utilization as well as in availing of the Cenvat credit and its further utilization. We do not find any merit in the conclusion which has been reached by the Adjudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
