Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2018 (8) TMI 1005 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - Rule 9(2) of CCR - credit prior to registration of premises - relevant date for issuance of SCN - Scope of SCN - Has the Commissioner traversed beyond the scope of Show Cause Notice? - Only allegations in the SCN was with receipt of non-eligibility of credit on account of availment of credit prior to registration of service centres - Commissioner confirmed the demand on the ground that the stock transfer notes issued by the appellants do not satisfy the requirements of proper documents to take credit Held that - It is clear that the Learned Commissioner has accepted the contention of the appellants as far as the admissibility of credit availed by them on the inputs available on the date of coming in to effect of the provisions of deemed manufacture. Further the Learned Commissioner has also observed that there is no time limit prescribed under CENVAT Credit Rules for availment of Credit The authority further proceeded to decide the eligibility on the factors that were not the part of Show Cause Notice. To this extent the L Commissioner has certainly traversed beyond the scope of the SCN - the impugned order is not maintainable. Whether the appellants are entitled for the credit they have availed? - Held that - The appellants being a well-established multinational have an elaborate and fool proof method of accounting goods. All the service centres receive parts only from CWH. It is not the case of the Department that parts are dispatched or sold from CWH to places other than service centres or that Service Centres procure parts from other sources. In such a case it is incomprehensible as to how some parts could not be held to be not correlated to be duty paid. Having dealt the issue from the issue of substantial compliance having held that the registration itself is a procedural requirement and stock transfer invoice a duty paying document the learned Commissioner could have got the issue examined in totality from CWH and further transfer to various service centres before denying the credit - the issue requires to go to the jurisdictional authority who shall allow the credit on verifying the records at CWH and transfer to various service centres in totality within 3 months of submission of records and evidence to that effect by the appellants - appeal allowed by way of remand. Whether the appellants case is covered under the provisions of Section 11A (2B) of the Central Excise Act 1944? - Held that - The audit note in fact has raised some issues relating to irregular availment of CENVAT Credit. The only condition under which the provision of this section could be denied to the appellants was non-payment of duty by reason of fraud collusion suppression of fact wilful misstatement etc. These ingredients were not established either in the SCN or the impugned order. Moreover the appellants appear to have submitted that consequent upon the change in legal position they examined as to whether the activity undertaken by them at the CWH and Service Centres amounted to manufacture; simultaneously the mammoth task of identifying the activity undertaken in respect of each of the 5-6000 number of parts was taken up and could be completed only by August 2006 - it was not open to the department to go beyond the proposition in the Audit Note. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|