9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 759X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional facility for direct transport of goods from the manufacturer to the consignee who avails Cenvat Credit based on the cenvatable invoices issued by the registered dealer. It further mentions that this change was so brought about to obviate the need for goods to be brought to the premises of registered dealers for subsequent transport of the goods to the consignee. For earlier period, the appellant has adverted to Circular No. 218/52/96-CX dated 04.06.1996 concerning transit sale movement of goods under Rule 52-A invoice. Moreover, even the circular referred supra clearly states that the impugned changes need to be read harmoniously keeping the governments intention in mind and that these were by way of additional facility to registered dealer for direct dispatch of goods from the manufacturer to consignee when they were issuing cenvatable invoice. When non receipt of goods by the appellant, is not substantiated, it would not be appropriate to deny them the facility of Cenvat Credit availment on the strength of the invoice of the registered dealer, duly accounted for in their RG-23A-Pt.I II. The department s contention of mere receipt of documents and no goods were supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondent ORDER The appellants M/s Marco Blowers (India) Pvt. Ltd., vide present appeal have assailed the order in appeal no.12/SLG-CGST/2018 dated 06.06.2018 passed by the Ld. Commissioner, upholding the order passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority vide Order in Original No.20/12/Ac/Joka/Kol-v/Adjn 2015-16 dated 29.01.2016, had disallowed the Cenvat Credit of Rs.1,77,745/- (Rupees One lakh seventy seven thousand seven hundred forty five only) and also imposed penalty of Rs.88,873/- (Rupees Eighty eight thousand eight hundred seventy three only), under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 besides demand for interest under Section 11AA, was also confirmed. 2. The appellant is a manufacturer exporter of agricultural machinery falling under Chapter 84. They source raw materials through Roshanlal Bhogirathmal a registered dealer. As per the invoices issued by the said registered dealer the name and address of the buyer, if not consignee is shown as; i. Shreeluxmi Iron Trading Company. ii. Venus Trading Corporation. (Both local traders and unregistered dealers). 3. The appellants manufacture parts of paddy driers out of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intentionally without receipt of goods and therefore invoked extended period of limitation. 6. It has been an admitted position both by the supplier of goods, as well as the recipient thereof, that they have been negotiating the sales through the said two unregistered dealers. In fact the registered dealer has submitted, to negotiate supplies of manufactured goods through traders, for sale of his goods. The appellant relies heavily on Board s of Circular no. 1003/10/2015- CX dated 05.05.2015. It is noticed that the said circular of the Board caters to a situation as herein and was based upon representations received from the trade. Vide para 3 of the circular, the Board has spelled out the purpose behind amending Central Excise Rules 2002 and inserting two provisos (third fourth) in Rule 11(2) thereof. Para 3 of the circular states that the intendment for amendment was to allow an additional facility for direct transport of goods from the manufacturer to the consignee who avails Cenvat Credit based on the cenvatable invoices issued by the registered dealer. It further mentions that this change was so brought about to obviate the need for goods to be brought to the premises of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f such direct transport to the buyer s premises needs to be recorded in the invoice. 6.1 For earlier period, the appellant has adverted to Circular No. 218/52/96-CX dated 04.06.1996 concerning transit sale movement of goods under Rule 52-A invoice. Moreover, even the circular referred supra clearly states that the impugned changes need to be read harmoniously keeping the governments intention in mind and that these were by way of additional facility to registered dealer for direct dispatch of goods from the manufacturer to consignee when they were issuing cenvatable invoice. Moreover, it is noted that the department s stance is purely conjectural in respect of their claim that the entire scheme was so manipulated to benefit the consignee by issuing cenvatable invoices and to promote the business of buyer/consignee. It belies logic that if as alleged no goods were received by the consignee, then how can the business be promoted. 7. In view of above, when non receipt of goods by the appellant, is not substantiated, it would not be appropriate to deny them the facility of Cenvat Credit availment on the strength of the invoice of the registered dealer, duly accounted for in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting the receipt of the goods. Thus as the impugned goods have been found to be duly accounted for in statutory records, payments made, transportation details indicated in the invoices and as there is not an iota of evidence to suggest non-receipt of goods by the appellants, Cenvat Credit therefore cannot be denied. Also since it is not the case that no goods were produced by the appellants and also under the circumstances no alternative receipt/supply of goods for such manufacture has been brought out by the department, the charge levelled gets demolished under its own weight. I find that the Tribunal has also so held and allowed credit in the case of Dashmesh Castings PVt. Ltd., 2015 (320) E.L.T. 450 T CCE ST, Chandigarh. In the case of Apollo Metalex PVt. Ltd. V. CCE ST Noida 2015(323) E.L.T. 394T, the Tribunal held that it was not correct to disallow credit on the strength of invoices issued by unregistered dealer (intermediate supplier), when actual receipt of goods was not disputed. 9. The order of the Learned Commissioner passed in appeal is therefore set aside and the appeal filed by the party is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open court on 18.05.2023) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
