9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Credit taken was being reversed. As a matter of fact, from the Show Cause Notice, it is seen that the demand is towards Cenvat Credit of Rs. 1,46,75,425/- and even for under Section 11D, the same amount has been demanded. It shows that the entire Cenvat Credit taken was properly reversed by them when the goods were cleared to their buyers. In such a case, it would be more in the nature of clearance of goods under Rule 3(5) of CCR, 2004 rather than clearance of finished goods - the Department had not raised any objection for the Excise Duty payments made towards such transactions being carried on by the appellant. Both Cenvat Credit taking and Cenvat debiting have been reflected by them in their ER-1 Returns. It is also not the case of the Department that the goods in question were not received by them in their factory or not accounted for by them in their Books of Account. The Appellant has produced documentary evidence to the effect that all the payments towards purchase of these items have been made through banking channels. In such a case, there are no justification on the part of the Revenue to confirm the demand by denying the Cenvat Credit taken. Time limitation - HELD THA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Learned Consultant submits that there is no dispute that the goods in question were not received in the factory premises of the appellant. There is also no dispute to the effect that the goods were not received under proper Invoices raised by the vendors and on which the details of Excise Duty payment was shown. The Appellant has produced all the evidence to the effect that the purchases have been made by them through banking channels. Therefore, when all these facts are not in dispute and it is also not disputed that when these goods were cleared by the appellant to their buyers, proper Excise Duty payment has been discharged the question of denial of Cenvat Credit would not arise. Therefore, he submits that the Adjudicating Authority erred in confirming the demand by denying the Cenvat Credit. 4. He cites the case law of Pioneer Carbide (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of CGST CX, Shillong, Final Order No. 76827/2024 dated 12.08.2024 passed by this Bench, wherein it has been held that so long as the Cenvat Credit taken has been utilized and the end product has been cleared on payment of Excise Duty, the Cenvat Credit taken cannot be denied. He also relies on the case law of R S Ispat Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to their buyers. In such a case, it would be more in the nature of clearance of goods under Rule 3(5) of CCR, 2004 rather than clearance of finished goods. We see that the Department had not raised any objection for the Excise Duty payments made towards such transactions being carried on by the appellant. Both Cenvat Credit taking and Cenvat debiting have been reflected by them in their ER-1 Returns. It is also not the case of the Department that the goods in question were not received by them in their factory or not accounted for by them in their Books of Account. The Appellant has produced documentary evidence to the effect that all the payments towards purchase of these items have been made through banking channels. In such a case, we do not find any justification on the part of the Revenue to confirm the demand by denying the Cenvat Credit taken. 10. We find that this Bench in the case of Pioneer Carbide (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of CGST CX, Shillong, vide Final Order No. 76827/2024 dated 12.08.2024, has held as under:- 4. We find from the statement submitted by the appellant at page 4 of their appeal paper book that for the entire period the appellant has purchased the Ferro Sili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants have complied with the provisions of Rule 16(1) and (2). 5. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the appellant has reversed the entire CENVAT Credit and also paid further Rs.7,58,271/- under PLA account while clearing the goods which they had bought from other vendors. Therefore, we find that the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Bunty Foods is squarely applicable. A careful reading of Rule 16 of CER 2002 clarifies that any goods on which duty has been paid at the time of removal can be taken as CENVAT Credit. It does not specify that the finished goods of any other third party cannot be used as input by the assessee for availing the concession of Rule 16(1), 16(2). It is clearly stated that the amount of Excise Duty paid while clearing such goods received under Rule 16(1) should be either equivalent or more than the CENVAT Credit taken. We find that this condition has been fulfilled in the present case. In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned order are allow the appeal on merits. 11. This Bench in the case of R S IspatVs. Commr. of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV vide Final Order No. 76809-76810/2024 dated 04/09/2024 has held as under:- 19. Now ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
