Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 771 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - requirement of endorsement as per Circular dated 10.04.1986 not being complied prior to availing the credit - Held that:- The non-endorsement of the relevant Gate Passes was at the most, a bonafide and rectifiable defect of a procedural/technical nature. Such defect has already been rectified and proper endorsement in favour of the respondent has already been made by the Railway Authorities. The original Gate Passes in proper form and duly endorsed by the Railway Authorities were produced before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner has himself held that the Respondent was entitled to restoration of the credit once the Gate Passes were endorsed on 6.2.1992 and 16.12.1992. The credit is allowable to the respondent as per the instructions issued by the CBE&C by its Circular No.441/7/99-CX dated 23.02.1999 - By the said circular, the Board directed the Central Excise Authorities to allow credit of the duty paid on inputs ignoring minor procedural lapses in the Invocie/documents based on which the credit is taken if it is proved that the inputs have suffered duty and were used in the process of manufacture. The Board further directed that all pending cases may be disposed off in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the aforesaid Circular. All the particulars in respect of the said MCI inserts and the credit taken thereon were duly entered in the RG23A Parts I & II, the extracts whereof were regularly submitted by the Respondent to the Central Excise authorities alongwith the monthly RT-12 returns. The bona fide omission to furnish the duty paying documents for defacing cannot be treated as suppression of facts by the Respondents. It is well settled that when availment of credit and utilization thereof has been reflected in RT-12 Returns, the non submission of duty-paying documents cannot be treated as suppression of facts. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|