Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 634 - CESTAT NEW DELHIRule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 – Registration as a manufacturer and not as a dealer - Appellant imported sodium antimonite and availed the credit of duty paid thereon - Said sodium antimonite was sold by the appellant as such by reversing the entire credit so availed by them - Revenue entertained a view that inasmuch as the assessee had traded in the said sodium antimonite and inasmuch as they were not registered as dealer, they were not entitled to avail Cenvat credit – Held that:- Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides that when inputs, on which credit has been taken are removed; as such, from the factory, the manufacturer shall pay an amount equal to the credit availed in respect of such inputs - The Tribunal in the case of CCE, New Delhi vs. Topaze Overseas (P) Ltd. [1998 (8) TMI 384 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] has observed that the assessee’s registration as manufacturer of same items and not as a dealer is sufficient for the purpose of Notification No. 32/94-CE(NT). Similarly in the case of R S Julliram Shamlal vs. CCE Calcutta [2002 (1) TMI 1070 - CEGAT, KOLKATA], it was held that when supplier of inputs is already registered as a manufacturer separate registration as a dealer is not a ground for denying the Cenvat credit - Credit availed by the assessee stand reversed by them at the time of clearance of goods from their factory and as such, the entire situation is revenue neutral – Decided in favor of Assessee. Shortage found in two Raw-Materials - Shortages detected in the lead ingots and zinc ingots - The appellants immediately reversed the said credit – Held that:- No evidence adduced by the Revenue that the differential quantity of inputs was cleared by the appellant clandestinely - Appellants contention that such shortage may be on account of short quantity received than the invoice quantity is to be accepted - Appellants not agitated the said confirmation of demand and has deposited the same - Imposition of penalty on the appellant is not justified – Decided in favor of Assessee.
|