TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent to evade duty. As such the exception carved out in Rule 7(1)(b) is not available in the present case. In the absence of the same, the supplementary invoices raised by M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. have to be held as eligible document for the purpose of availment of credit - show cause notice was raised on the sole ground that the respondents are not owners of the said capital goods and as such the availment of credit was not justified - Following decision of Maruti Udyog Ltd. [2003 (10) TMI 166 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] and Pepsi Foods Ltd. reported as [2010 (2) TMI 608 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] and SGS India P. Ltd. reported as [2011 (3) TMI 759 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] - Decided against Revenue. - E/1010 of 2006 - FINAL ORDER NO.A-55312/2013 - Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 94 on free of cost basis and the respondents cannot be held to be the owners of the same and as such they could not have availed the credit as there was no sale invoices in the name of the respondents. 4. The respondents in their reply submitted before the original adjudicating authority contended that M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. had imported the said capital goods under EPCG scheme without payment of any duty and transferred the same to the respondents for further use in manufacture of sheet metal parts. Since no CVD was paid by M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd., the capital goods were transferred without payment of any excise duty and as such no Modvat credit was availed by them on the same. However, as M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. could not fulfil the export o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... envat Credit Rules, 2002, Supplementary invoices issued by a manufacturer or an importer is a valid duty paid document for the purpose of availment of Cenvat credit. He also examined the fact that M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. had to pay duty on the imported capital goods in the year 2002 as they were unable to fulfil the export obligation. In as much as the duty was paid long after the goods were imported by way of raising supplementary invoices and the credit was taken immediately on the basis of said supplementary invoices, the denial of credit was not justified. He also held that there was no fraud, collusion, wilful statement or suppression of facts on the part of M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. so as to make supplementary invoices ineligible documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. could not fulfil the export obligation. Accordingly duty was paid by M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. in March, 2002 by way of supplementary invoices on the basis of which the respondents has availed the credit. From the said facts, it can be reasonable concluded that there was no suppression, fraud, misstatement etc. with an intent to evade duty. As such the exception carved out in Rule 7(1)(b) is not available in the present case. In the absence of the same, the supplementary invoices raised by M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. have to be held as eligible document for the purpose of availment of credit. 8. Otherwise also we find that the show cause notice was raised on the sole ground that the respondents are not owners of the said capital goods and as s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
