Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 963 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - duty paying invoices - credit taken on the basis of photocopy of the courier bill of entry - Held that: - in case of Union of India vs. Hira Steels Ltd [2010 (9) TMI 867 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT], Cenvat credit taken on photocopies has been held to be valid, as there is no dispute regarding the receipt of duty paid inputs under such invoices and their use in the manufacture of finished goods cleared on payment of duty - credit allowed. CENVAT credit - capital goods - 100% credit taken in the first year of acquisition - Held that: - originally when the machinery was acquired in their factory, they had taken only 50% of the credit in the year of receipt and the balance 50% was taken only in the next financial year - further, the credit was taken but not utilised - relying upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner vs. Bill Forge PVt. Ltd. [2011 (4) TMI 969 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], the appellant are not liable to pay interest and penalty. CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - input services - denial on the ground that in the bill, service tax registration is not mentioned and further some of the bills are not in the prescribed format - Held that: - excepting the service tax registration number all other details have been given in the bills - even certificate of service tax registration has also been placed on record which shows that the service provider had the service tax registration at the time when the input service was provided to the appellant - reliance placed in the case of Commissioner Vs. Techno Vision [2006 (7) TMI 556 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], it has been held that if the transaction is bonafide, credit could not be denied even if duty paying documents are invalid Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|