9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vat credit on their inputs prior to 1-4-2000 on the strength of the original invoices issued by the supplier, they could validly claim to be entitled to take Cenvat credit of the additional amounts of duty paid on the same goods by the supplier under the supplementary invoices - credit allowed. - E/2017/2003 - A/873/2008-WZB/C-II/EB - Dated:- 3-12-2008 - S/Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) and K.K. Agarwal, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY : Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri N.A. Sayed, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - In this appeal filed by the assessee, the short question arising for consideration is whether they were entitled to avail Cenvat credit on inputs on the strength of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d., 2007 (210) E.L.T. 178 (S.C.), wherein Rule 57E was held to be a procedural and clarificatory provision not affecting the substantive right of a manufacturer of final product to claim Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs used by him in the manufacture of the final product. He has also claimed support from the decision of a learned single Member of the Tribunal in CCE, Goa v. Essel Pro-Pack Ltd., 2007 (8) S.T.R. 609 (Tri.-Mum.), wherein TR-6 challan was accepted as a valid document for availment of Cenvat credit of service tax. We have heard the learned JDR also, who has reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. After considering the submissions, we are of the view that the appellants were entitled to take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... available to confirm the factum of payment of additional amounts of duty by the supplier. In any case, it was not in dispute that the inputs were received in the appellants' factory and used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products. The substantive requirements of Cenvat credit were thus met by the party. The benefit was not liable to be denied on procedural grounds. In the case of Home Ashok Leyland Ltd. (supra), it was held that Rule 57E was only a procedural provision. In that case also, the substantive conditions for availment of Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were found to have been complied with by the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held to the effect that non-observance of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
