9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BHOPAL [ 2009 (5) TMI 743 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] has held just because the invoices issued by M/s. SC Enviro Agro India Pvt. Ltd. mention M/s. Sumitomo Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. as the customer, while at the same time mentioning the appellant as the consignee, will not become invalid document for taking Cenvat credit, we therefore, hold that the impugned order is not sustainable. The Appellant is eligible for the Cenvat Credit - Appeal allowed. - Excise Appeal No. 79200 of 2018 - FINAL ORDER NO.75175/2023 - Dated:- 24-3-2023 - HON BLE MR. R. MURALIDHAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri N. K. Chowdhury, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Joydip Chattopadhyay, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Appellant. 4. The Ld. AR reiterates the findings of the Lower Authorities and submits that the Orders were correctly passed by the Lower Authorities since the Invoices do not show the Appellant as the buyer of the goods. 5. Heard both sides and perused the documents. 6. Admittedly, there is no dispute that the goods in question have been received by the Appellant in their factory premises and the same were properly recorded in their Books of Account. Even the Invoices in question clearly show the details of the Appellant along with their ECC Number and Central Excise Range and Division etc. The Tribunal in the case of Kunststoff Polymers Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Bhopal -2009 (247) E. L. T. 546 (Tri.-Del.) has held as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods have been directly received in the user s premises. Similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Prakash Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay (supra), wherein the Tribunal held that in a situation where the inputs were received from a manufacturer I but through a dealer, the Cenvat credit cannot be denied so long as the co-relation between goods received by the user manufacturer from the dealer under the dealer s invoice can be established with the goods received by the dealer from the manufacturer. This judgment of the Tribunal has been followed in the cases of Beepee Coatings Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 223 (Tri.-Bom.) and Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai reported in 2003 (161) E.L.T. 710 (Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
