Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 348 - CESTAT NEW DELHIDenial of CENVAT Credit - Absence of any evidence to show that the inputs were neither used in the manufacture but diverted to elsewhere - Bills of entry which were in the name of the transferor of the inputs not being endorsed in the name of the transferee/appellant - Held that:- Board’s Circular above has no embargo to prohibit transfer nor it says that endorsement is mandatory. It has no doubt prescribed procedure to safeguard interest of revenue so as to ensure that double claim of Cenvat credit is not made on same goods. There exists no evidence on record to show that the goods which came through the bills of entry transferred to the present appellant did not reach factory of appellant nor unused in the manufacture. So also, there is no evidence on record to show that there was abuse of the imports made by bills of entry. Nor also there exists any evidence to show that there were double claim of the Cenvat credit made. Once such situation is absent the Cenvat credit claimed by the appellant is undeniable. Revenue relates to the case of denial of Cenvat credit against endorsed bills of entry. Tribunal held against Revenue. In the case of the present appellant there was no endorsement at all. So also there was no evidence at all on record to show that goods have gone elsewhere for double claim of the Cenvat credit. When such feature is present, denial of relief to the appellant shall result in taxing input again in the finished goods making value addition - Decided in favour of assessee.
|