Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 83 - AT - Central ExciseWhether M/s SMV Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (main appellant) is eligible to avail CENVAT Credit of additional Excise duty, which was paid by the Sugar factory or otherwise, and whether the appellant No. 2 i.e. individual is also liable for penalty? - Held that: - The Rule 7(1)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 for the period in question indicate that the supplementary invoices issued by the manufacturer or importer of inputs is to be considered as a document for availment of CENVAT Credit. On reading of the said rule, I find that the additional amount of duty is being raised on the supplementary invoices should be clearly additional duty become payable and should not be the duty which is recoverable from the manufacturer or importer of inputs by invoking the extended period of time - In the case in hand, I find that the supplementary invoices are issued by the registered dealer indicating the payment of AED done by the sugar factory. Undisputedly, sugar factory has issued earlier invoices for the clearance of sugar for the period prior to 1.3.2003. The supplementary invoices which was issued by the registered dealer cannot be a document for availment of CENVAT Credit, as the said supplementary invoices did not indicate that the manufacturer has paid any excise or additional duty but is a invoice issued by the dealer in his capacity as a registered dealer for not issuing proper duty paying documents at the first instance. In my considered view, this supplementary invoice on which credit was availed by the main appellant are not the document on which such Credit can be availed - CENVAT credit not allowed to M/s SMV Beverages Pvt. Ltd. As regards the penalty imposed on the registered dealer, I find that such penalty has been imposed under the provisions of Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. In my view, provisions of Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 does not contemplate imposition of penalty on the registered dealer and that also for issuing of supplementary invoices to the purchaser of goods. In view of this, I set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant No. 2, who is a registered dealer. Appeal disposed off - decided against M/s SMV Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and in favor of individual appellant.
|