Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2022 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 1119 - HC - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - goods stored in the godown/depot near the ports - goods in stock or not - it is claimed that credit must be allowed in the goods stored in the godown/depot near the ports because the said goods had already been cleared from the factory prior to the issuance of the notification - Rule 9-A of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 - HELD THAT:- It was noticed by the Adjudicating Authority that the documents, i.e. invoices and transport documents, submitted by the appellant showed that the goods in question had been removed from the factory for the period 11th November, 2002 to 28th March, 2003 and 27th November, 2002 to 27th March, 2003. The goods had been cleared on the basis of commercial invoices and were lying at the port for export. Admittedly, the goods had been removed to the port area on issuance of invoices disclosing the buyers name. The goods were not subjected to duty liability at the time of clearance from the factory. Since the goods had been removed from the factory area to the port area on the basis of invoices disclosing buyers name, the same were liable to be excluded from being considered as “goods lying in stock”. In this situation, Adjudicating Authority rightly came to the conclusion that the goods had already been removed from the premises of the appellant and had been discounted from the stock account maintained at the factory. Therefore, the appellant could not claim that the goods were still lying in its stock. As per Rule 9-A of the Rules, a manufacturer could avail credit vis-à-vis equal to the duty paid on inputs of such finished product, lying in stock or in process or contained in finished products, lying in the stock as on 31st March, 2003 by making a written declaration. However, in the present case, the Adjudicating Authority as well as learned Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the goods in question could not be said to be lying with the assessee in stock as they had already been removed to the port area from the factory on the basis of issuance of invoices disclosing buyers name. Appeal dismissed.
|