Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1338 - AT - Central ExciseTime Limitation - Valuation - supply of goods by HVTL to TML - HVTL became the subsidiary of TML - Section 4 of the Act read with the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 - HELD THAT:- It is seen from the extract of the SCN above that the department has made a bland allegation that the assessee has resorted to short payment of duty with intent to evade payment of duty. Nowhere the SCN records any specific act on the part of HVTL for such allegation. In fact perusal of the SCN reveals that the investigation was started by the department only after receipt of intimation by HVTL regarding the payment of differential duty amounting to ₹ 55 lakhs as per their own computation. There is no justification for issue of SCN by alleging suppression on the part of HVTL. Since no demand for differential duty survives within the normal period of limitation, the entire differential duty demand raised is liable to be set aside. CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - credit availed on the basis of supplementary invoices issued by HVTL at the time of payment of differential duty - Rule 7(1)(b) of CCR 2001 - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the differential duty has been paid by HVTL and the supplementary invoices issued. The reason cited by the Adjudicating Authority for denying the credit to TML is that the relevant Central Excise Rules did not provide for availment of Cenvat credit on such supplementary invoices. There is no justification for invoking extended period of limitation under Section 11A since there is nothing on record to allege suppression of facts. The Tribunal has also been consistently taking the view that credit is permissible on the basis of supplementary invoice even prior to 29.08.2000 when notification No. 51/2000 was issued - credit rightly availed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|