Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2024 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 1117 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of duty paid - reversal of CENVAT credit availed on the basis of “diverted invoice” - endorsed invoices - proper document for claiming Central Excise refund under Rule 9(1)(a)(i) of the Rules - HELD THAT:- The Bombay High Court in the case of MARMAGOA STEEL LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2005 (4) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY] had held that input credit was not deniable to assessee endorsed in the name of the person claiming the credit. This case law was however in the context of Bill of Entry endorsement, and not that of the invoices issued by a manufacturer, as it was a case pertaining to import. Nonetheless what is material is the said difference in the nature of document would not alter the situation about the duty paid character of the goods as well as their utilization in the finished product. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court therein had distinguished the Larger Bench’s decision in the case of BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., KANPUR [2000 (1) TMI 74 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] where it was held that The very object of issuance of Notification No. 32/94 referred to above and insertion of Rules 57GG and 174 requiring the registration of the dealer dealing with the excisable goods, would stand defeated and nullified if these are taken to be only procedural and not mandatory/ imperative in character and enforcement. Distinguishing, the said LB decision of the Tribunal, the Hon. High Court in the case of MARMAGOA STEEL LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2005 (4) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY], while recording its findings had held that In the absence of any provision regarding endorsement on the bill of entry, the credit of duty cannot be denied on the ground that the bill of entry is not endorsed in the name of the claimant. As stated hereinabove, what is required to be established for taking credit of duty is that the goods used as inputs are duty paid and that the credit of duty paid on the said goods has not been taken. As long as various ingredients regarding duty paid character of the goods are clearly established and there is no dispute about their utilization in the manufacture of finished goods, thereby indicating the necessary compliance of the act and the rules, no offence can be taken to the legitimate availment of credit. It is further noticed that there are slew of case laws GAUTAM WEAVING MILLS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BELAPUR [2008 (1) TMI 771 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], SIMPLEX MILLS CO. LTD. VERSUS CCE [2007 (6) TMI 513 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], allowing credit on the basis of endorsed duty paid document as long as all material particulars required to be incorporated in terms of erstwhile Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules and the physical receipt of the said goods were clearly established and not in dispute. Thus, the substantial benefit cannot be disallowed for an alleged irregularity as may have been pointed out by the department in the impugned Show Cause Notice. Mere endorsement of an invoice does not amend or alter the key essentials and characteristics of a validly issued invoice. The order of Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
|