TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmercial practice which was necessary for efficient procuring the equipment in question, this procedural lapse cannot be considered as a reason to deny Cenvat credit involved - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.ST/273/08, Appeal No.ST/282/08, Appeal No.ST/160/09, Appeal No.ST/164/2009 - FINAL ORDER No.40622-40625/2013 - Dated:- 12-12-2013 - Shri Mathew John, J. For the Appellant : Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate, Shri S. Muthu Venkatraman, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Parmod Kumar, JC (AR) JUDGEMENT 1. Four appeals are taken up in this proceeding. Out of these four, one appeal is filed by the assessee and three appeals are filed by the department. All the appeals involve identical facts and issues but differe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on precedent decision of the Tribunal in Final Order No.1221/2008 dt. 28.10.08. 3. Aggrieved by the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue filed three appeals pleading for restoration of adjudication order including penalty and the assessee has filed one appeal for allowing credit in the case where it has been denied by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Arguing for the assessee, the advocate submits that the assessee was having very many secondary switching areas. It was only natural that procurement was done centrally to get competitive bids and also for arranging logistics efficiently. From a commercial point of view, such an operational approach had to be followed and cannot be faulted as a method to take any unauthorized credit. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not actual invoice. Further, he submits that these invoices were addressed to the Divisional Engineer, Central Stores, Madurai but credits were taken at other locations. For these reasons, the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) are not proper. He submits that but for the verification conducted by the department, this irregularity would not have come to the notice of the department and therefore penalty should be imposed. 6. Considered submissions on both sides. It is true that assessee has not complied with provisions of CCR 2004 read with Central Excise Rules, 2002 strictly. However, I find that existence of original invoice and its genuineness is not disputed by Revenue. In fact, such documents were produced before lower authorities. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
