9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asis unless it is a sale transaction because CENVAT credit was taken at the time of purchase of capital goods that has already determined the transaction value and it is that value which is noted in the transfer challan. Revenue neutrality - HELD THAT:- The appellant had clearly mentioned in the documents evidencing transfer that the valuation was done as per the Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX dated 01/07/2002 and the same is held to be proper calculation by the Jurisdictional Range Offer of the supplier of capital goods, besides the facts that it is now a settled position of law that legality of such availment of credit cannot be questioned at the receiver s end let alone a revenue neutral situation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12/06/2014 on the ground that transaction value of the capital goods of more than 10 years old caring Nil value were noted in the cover of invoice with the remark that it was a stock transfer and not sale for which credit was inadmissible. Legality of such order of denial is questioned before this forum. 3. I have heard submissions from both the sides and perused the case record as well as provision contained in Rule 3(5A)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The main argument led by the appellant is that admissibility of credit cannot be denied at the receiver s end when its legality was affirmatively noted by the Range Superintendent in respect of supplier of goods i.e. ITC Ltd. in his report dated 01/10/2015 that has been placed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it (Amendment) Rules in 2005 vide Notification dated 16/05/2005, whereby it was clarified that amount paid under sub-Rule 5 and Rule (5A) shall be eligible as CENVAT credit as if it was a duty paid by the person who removed the goods under sub-Rule 5 and Rule (5A) . 5. As can be inferred from the Commissioner (Appeals) s Order at pare 10.2 of his finding at page 9, he had accepted the report of the Range Officer of Saharanpur where both the appellants and its supplier ITC Ltd. were having their factory, in respect of availment of CENVAT credit on all other capital goods but he refused to acknowledge such availment of credit in respect of capital goods of more than 10 years old on the ground as reproduced here under:- The amount pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at removal after being used is the requirement for availment of CENVAT credit and whether it is a sale transaction/not a sale transaction is not a criteria that would determine the eligibility of availment of such credit and therefore it would be erroneous to say that transaction value of the invoice would have no basis unless it is a sale transaction because CENVAT credit was taken at the time of purchase of capital goods that has already determined the transaction value and it is that value which is noted in the transfer challan. Further appellant had clearly mentioned in the documents evidencing transfer (at page 099 of the appeal memo) that the valuation was done as per the Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX dated 01/07/2002 and the same is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
