TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant could have taken credit on the manufacturers invoice only. The original authority has dropped the proceedings. The original adjudicating authority has power to condone and condoned the omission in the invoice and allowed credit. He has satisfied that the goods received have been used for the manufacture of final products and appropriate duty has been paid and other relevant requirements as prescribed under Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are available. appellant is eligible for credit taken by them - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/530/2008-SM - FINAL ORDER No. 20030/2014 - Dated:- 2-1-2014 - SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, J. For the Appellant : Mr. Akbar Basha, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. S. Teli, Deputy Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inputs in the manufacture of his final products. 3. On appeal filed against this decision by Revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held against the assessee and hence the appellant is before me. 4. After going through the records, it is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a view that the dealer did not register himself with the department as first stage dealer and second stage dealer and invoice issued by him could not have been the basis for taking Cenvat credit. I find that this ground is correct. However availment of credit by the appellant can be considered as technical error. In this case, admittedly, manufacturers invoice had been sent by dealer. Therefore the appellant could have taken credit on the manufacturer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransit sale, is not only contrary to the facts, but also seems to be designed to present the facts in a misconstrued manner with a view to qualify them for transit sale and to avail the benefit of cenvat credit on that account. Learned counsel draws my attention to the submission in Appeal Memo filed by appellant wherein they have analysed the delay in respect of the goods. In paragraph 9 at page 15 of the Appeal memo, analysis made by the assessee shows that only in two cases out of 20, there was a delay of more than one month in respect of goods. Commissioners observation has no basis on facts. In any case, no reason has been given by the Commissioner (Appeals) to disbelieve the conclusion reached by the original adjudicating author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
