9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be utilized for manufacture of final products cleared on payment of duty. It is not the case of the department that the respondents did not receive the said inputs; the same were not duty paid and the same were not utilized for manufacture of final dutiable products. Going by the facts of the case it is found that none of the essential conditions have been violated to deny the credit to the appellant. The department has not taken any steps to dishonor the duty payment made by the supplier of respondents. A show cause was issued alleging that their availment of Cenvat Credit was incorrect as the process undertaken by them did not amount to manufacture. The availment of Cenvat Credit by the respondents cannot be held to be illegal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvat Credit; when there is no liability to pay duty the CENVAT chain stops; when duty is paid without any liability, Cenvat cannot be claimed; if the supplier ceases to be a manufacturer as per Rule 9 of CCR,2004, such invoice cannot be a duty paying document and credit cannot be availed; Commissioner erred in holding that actual receipt of inputs and sufficient proof of their being duty paid is enough to avail credit, whereas basic requirement was duty payment by a manufacturer. 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that Commissioner has correctly relied upon the CESTAT order in which it was held that the payment of duty with value addition on the inputs received by the appellants amounts to reversal of Cenvat Credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (xiii). Light Lift Industries Vs CCE, Delhi-IV 2010(262) ELT 602 (Tri-Del) (xiv). UOI Vs Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd 2017 (354) ELT 87(Bom) (xv). UOI Vs Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd 2017 (354) ELT A26 (SC) 4. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. Brief issue involved in this case is to decide whether the respondents were correct in availing credit on the inputs received from their sister concern, in case the supplier has paid duty even if they are not allegedly not doing any processes which amount to manufacture. We find, in terms of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, that a manufacturer or producer of final products or a provider of taxable services shall be allowed to take credit of (various taxes mentioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is to be seen if there is any violation of CCR, 2004. As discussed above, no such allegation, leave alone proof, is given. The Learned commissioner in the impugned order has correctly observed that the fact that the supplier has carried out some processes, which though did not amount to manufacture, does not alter the duty paid character of the inputs; when the duty paid inputs are genuinely used in or in relation to manufacture of dutiable final products, denial of benefit of Cenvat Credit would be totally in defiance of the spirit of the entire Cenvat Scheme. We further find that commissioner has rightly held in Para 6 that actual receipt of inputs and sufficient proof of their duty paid nature are the basic requirements of the Cenvat s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
