TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 980X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taking credit. For taking Cenvat Credit on input it is not mandatory that payment towards purchase of the input has to be made. There are number of transactions in the trade such as procurement input from group company, sister concern on payment of duty procurement of input for job work etc. in such transaction there is no transaction of any payments towards supply of inputs, despite this position Cenvat credit is admissible and can not be disputed so long input is duty paid, received in the factory and used in the manufacture. In view of my above discussion, I am of the considered view that appellant have correctly and legally availed the Cenvat Credit on the invoices wherein appellant name is appearing as consignee and name of the M/s. Somaiya Steel Corporation and M/s. Hansraj Karsanraj & Co., appearing as buyer therefore I set aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee. - APPEAL NO. E/899/12-MUM, E/85528/13-MUM - - - Dated:- 15-5-2015 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, J. For The Appellant : Ms. Anjali Hirawat, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri. Ashutosh Nath, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) Per : Ramesh Nair These two appeals are directed against followings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 1 lakh and maintained demand of interest. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed this appeal. 2. Ms. Anjali Hirawat, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that Cenvat credit was denied on the ground that invoices wherein appellant s name is appearing as consignee and buyer s name as M/s. Somaiya Steel Corporation and M/s. Hansraj Karsanraj Co., are invalid invoices for taking Cenvat credit. The Revenue has contended that credit can be allowed only on the basis of invoice of first stage and second stage dealer. In the present case M/s. Somaiya Steel Corporation and M/s. Hansraj Karsanraj Co., have not issued invoices in the capacity of first stage or second stage dealer, on this count credit was denied. She submits that it is general trade practice that sale invoices contains two column which is as per prescribed format that one column for name and address for the buyers and second is for name and address of consignee. In such case appellant being consignee of the goods, they are entitled to credit irrespective of the fact that as per that invoices buyer is same intermediately dealer or distributors. It is her submission that even though the credit was taken on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken by the manufacturer or the provider of output service or input service distributor, as the case may be, on the basis of any of the following documents, namely :- (a) an invoice issued by- (i) a manufacturer for clearance of - (I) inputs or capital goods 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; (II) inputs or capital goods as such; (ii) an importer; (iii) an importer from his depot or from the premises of the consignment agent of the said importer if the said depot or the premises, as the case may be, is registered in terms of the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002; (iv) a first stage dealer or a second stage dealer, as the case may be, in terms of the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002; or (b) a supplementary invoice, issued by a manufacturer or importer of inputs or capital goods in terms of the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002 from his factory or depot or from the premises of the consignment agent of the said manufacturer or importer or from any other premises from where the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by manufacturer for clearance of inputs or capital goods from his factory. In the present case, invoices, on which credit was disputed was issued by manufacturer and the appellant s name is clearly appearing as consignee therefore the invoices in question squarely covered by clause (a) of sub rule 1 of Rule 9. I do not agree with the Revenue s contention that in case of purchase of input from dealer invoices should be issued by first stage dealer or second stage dealer. In my view only in case where the input is purchased directly from a dealer on his invoices and the manufacturer invoices is not indicated the name of the recipient as consignee the first stage dealer or second stage dealer as case may be is registered with Central Excise should issue invoices as provided under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, in the present case invoices on which credit was taken issued by manufacturer and appellants name is appearing as consignee, in such cases credit is admissible on these invoices and there is no need of separate invoices to be issued by the registered dealer for taking credit. As regard the contention of the Revenue that since appellant has not made payment for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
