Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1423 - CESTAT HYDERABADCENVAT Credit - capital goods - change in constitution of the company - invoice in the name of predecessor entity - period January 2014 to April 2014 - Held that:- This is a rather unusual case where the assessee lost the invoice of capital goods purchased in 2008. Thereafter, they changed the name and constitution of their company twice. Each time, on their request, the department has changed the name of their company in their Central Excise registration certificates, without changing the registration number - Since the name of the company has been changed, the invoice is in a different name and not in the name of the appellant; it was in their former name. There is nothing in the rules which disentitles an assessee to avail CENVAT Credit if they change their name and the invoice is in their former name. In fact, it is also not required for the invoice to be in the name of the assessee as long as the goods in question are received and used. In the case of mergers/acquisitions for instance, the assets and liabilities gets transferred to the successor entity while the invoices will be in the name of the predecessor entity. This itself would not be a ground to deny them CENVAT Credit. Similarly in case of job work, the inputs might have been used by the job worker but the invoice might have been raised in the name of the principal who purchased the goods, which also would not disentitle them to CENVAT Credit - there is no reason to deny the CENVAT Credit on the ground that the invoice is issued in the name of a different company. CENVAT Credit - second objection is that the CENVAT Credit has been taken after a gap of six years - Held that:- There is no limit of demand within which the capital goods credit can be taken or the time within which the goods should be put to use or the extent to which the capital goods must be used for manufacture of dutiable goods. Therefore, this ground also does not sustain. CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - photocopy of the invoice - Rule 9 of CCR - Held that:- Rule 9 of CCR 2004 indicates that the documents on the strength of which CENVAT Credit can be taken, Rule 9 (a)(i)(I) indicates that an invoice issued by the manufacturer or a service provider for clearance of inputs for capital goods CENVAT Credit. In this case, the original invoice and the duplicate copy of the transporter invoice issued by M/s BHEL Bhopal is lost, hence the appellant could not avail the CENVAT Credit on a photocopy of the invoice duly certified by the supplier M/s BHEL, Bhopal. There is no evidence whatsoever on record that the goods in question were not received by the appellant or were not put to use. There is also no evidence on record to show that the appellant has already availed CENVAT Credit on the strength of the invoice and this is a duplication of credit - appellant was entitled to CENVAT Credit taken by them and the same is not required to be reversed. Time limitation - Held that:- The credit was taken in January 2014 to April 2014 and the audit was conducted the next month i.e. May 2014 during which this issue was pointed out as a discrepancy but the show cause notice was issued only on 29.06.2016 or beyond the normal period of limitation when the department was fully aware of the sequences of events - the entire demand is also hit by limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|