Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (3) TMI 868 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2015 (3) TMI 868 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - Denial of CENVAT Credit - Cenvat Credit is available only to the person, to whom the goods have been sold by the manufacturer and not to any other person - Held that:- Rule 9 of Rules 2004 provides that cenvat credit shall be taken by the manufacturer or the provider of output service or input service distributor, as the case may be, on the basis of an invoice issued by a manufacturer of inputs or capital goods from his factory or depot or from the pre .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

factory of the appellant. In any event, the manufacturer of input supplied the goods in DTA. Thus, there is no scope to use the documents by the overseas company. So, the denial of cenvat Credit is not justified.

Appellants name was mentioned in the invoices and the goods were delivered at the appellant s factory and the cenvat credit was availed on the basis of invoices as mentioned under Rule 9 of Rules 2004 and the input utilized in the manufacture of final product. There is no dis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ture of Brass Rods classifiable under Chapter 74 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. They placed order to M/s MIR Metals Trading L.L.C Dubai and M/s A.R.A. Trading (L.L.C) Dubai for supply of Re-melted Brass Ingots/Brass Ingots. The said companies entered into contract with M/s Mitesh Impex, Jamnagar, for purchase of the Brass Ingots and the goods would be delivered to the appellant. Accordingly, M/s Mitesh Impex supplied the goods to the appellant under cover of Central Excis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the invoices, which are not valid documents in terms of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rule 2004. It has further been alleged that as per Rule 3 read with Rule 9 of the said Rule 2004, Cenvat Credit is available only to the person, to whom the goods have been sold by the manufacturer and not to any other person. It is mandatory that the person in whose name the invoice has been issued, can take credit. The Adjudicating Authority disallowed the cenvat credit of ₹ 14,34,980/- alongwith interest an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ufacturer of inputs. He submits that Rule 9 of the said Rules provides the documents. In the present case, the appellant s name is mentioned in the invoices and the goods were delivered to the appellant. In support of their contention, the appellant filed Miscellaneous application for additional documents to substantiate that the appellant received the goods in their factory and utilised in the manufacture of the final products, which were cleared on payment of duty. It is submitted that the Cen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Packaging 2005(191)ELT.169 (Tri.Chennai) d) Mahadev Industries vs CCE, Belgaum 2000(115)ELT.452 (Tribunal) 4. On the other hand, the Ld Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the appellant purchased the goods from the Dubai companies and the invoices were issued in their name. Rule 9 of the Rules 2004 clearly stipulates that credit would be eligible on the basis of invoices issued by the manufacture of inputs, wh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lants name as Delivery to . There is no dispute that the goods were delivered to the appellant accompanied with Central Excise invoices. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellants purchased goods from overseas trader but availed the input credit on the invoices issued by the manufacturer to the overseas trader, which is not in conformity with any of the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules. I agree with the submission of the Learned Advocate that in the Cenvat Scheme, ownership of inpu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oods from his factory or depot or from the premises of the consignment agent of the said manufacturer or from any other premises from where the goods are sold by or on behalf of the said manufacturer. Rule 3 of the said Rules 2004 provides a manufacturer shall be allowed to take credit the specified duty as mentioned therein, on any input received in the factory of manufacturer. In the present case, the appellant availed credit on the basis of invoice issued under Rule 9 of the said Rules. There .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

scribing the product recording the amount of duty paid and indicating the consignment to whom goods dispatched satisfied. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below : ?The next issue required to be considered by us is whether the invoices were improper documents vis-a-vis availability of Modvat credit on the inputs which were cleared and transported under their cover. In this respect, we are of the view that since it is not disputed that the name and address of the appellants .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(c) to record to whom these goods have been despatched. We find that whether these invoices were to the appellants on account of Railways or vice-versa is not in any way clouding the aforesaid three facts. When it is read in conjunction with the agreement between the appellants and the Railways, it is crystal clear that the Railways ordered for the purchase of the Inserts and directed the manufacturer thereof to supply to the appellants for further use in the manufacture of the Sleepers. That i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ere purchased through the dealer but directly supplied to the assessee s factory. The only difference between this fact and the fact in the present case is that here the goods were received not through a dealer, but through a buyer, namely the Railways, but that the goods in both the cases were directly despatched by the manufacturing factory to the end user. As long as this linkage is clearly established by the documents, mere technical considerations, in our considered view, should not be held .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version