TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er per: P.C. Chacko, Member (J)]. -1. The appellants are manufacturers of readymade garments (Heading 61.02 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act). Their products came to be chargeable to duty of excise with effect from 1-4-2003, from which date they have been clearing their products on payment of duty by availing Cenvat credit on inputs. During 2003-04, they had taken Cenvat credit of the duty paid on inputs in stock as on 31st day of March, 2003, inputs contained in finished product in stock as on the said date as well as input in process as on the said date, amounting to over Rs. 1 crore, under Rule 9A of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The inputs, in respect of which such credit was taken, had been purchased from depots ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or contained finished products lying in stock as on 31st day of March, 2003 upon making a written declaration of the description, quantity and value of the stock of inputs (whether lying in stock or in process or contained in finished products lying in stock) and subject to the availability of the document evidencing actual payment of duty thereon." Under the above provision, a manufacturer, first stage dealer or second stage dealer of goods like textile garments were entitled to avail Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs like cotton yarn present in stock as on 31-3-2003 or inputs contained in finished products present in stock as on the said date or inputs in process as on the said date, but this benefit could be availed by satisfying t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had cleared the goods on payment of duty at the factory gate and marketed the same from their depots. There is no sale of goods between the manufacturer and his depot. It was only stock transfer of goods from the factory to the depot. It was open to the manufacturer of cotton yarn to clear the goods from his depot under invoice referred to under Rule 7(1)(a)(i). All the so-called invoices produced by the appellants to the adjudicating authority were, in fact, invoices within the category mentioned under Rule 7(1)(a)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. In other words, the so-called depot invoices in this case were manufacturers' invoices and the same required to be accepted for purposes of Rule 9A of the said rules. Of course, if such invoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and were sold therefrom under the depot invoices to the appellants. The adjudicating authority, nevertheless, was yet to be satisfied. We have not found good reason for the Commissioner to have rermained dissatisfied with the evidence adduced by the appellants. Learned Commissioner also found shortcomings in the so-called depot invoices. We have already found that these invoices were, indeed, manufacturers' invoices in the category mentioned in Rule 7(1)(a)(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and it was open to the Commissioner to point out deficiencies therein. The question now is whether the deficiencies noted by the Commissioner were enough to deny the benefit of Rule 9A ibid to the party. One defect noted by the Commissioner is non-men ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
