9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k as on 31st day of March, 2003, inputs contained in finished product in stock as on the said date as well as input in process as on the said date, amounting to over Rs. 1 crore, under Rule 9A of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The inputs, in respect of which such credit was taken, had been purchased from depots of various manufacturers of cotton yarn and the availment of credit was on the strength of depot invoices. The department having found fault with such invoices and having found no registration of the depots with the department, proposed to disallow the above credit to the appellants. The show-cause notice issued in this connection was contested. In adjudication, learned Commissioner of Central Excise ordered recovery of an amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of goods like textile garments were entitled to avail Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs like cotton yarn present in stock as on 31-3-2003 or inputs contained in finished products present in stock as on the said date or inputs in process as on the said date, but this benefit could be availed by satisfying two requirements viz. (a) making a written declaration of the description, quantity and value of such stock; and (b) producing documentary evidence of actual payment of duty thereon. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the requisite written declaration was given by the appellants. The question is whether they could prove actual payment of duty on the inputs by the input-manufacturers, by adducing enough documentary evidence. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority were, in fact, invoices within the category mentioned under Rule 7(1)(a)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. In other words, the so-called depot invoices in this case were manufacturers' invoices and the same required to be accepted for purposes of Rule 9A of the said rules. Of course, if such invoices did not contain any essential particulars, it was open to the adjudicating authority to point it out to the appellants for rectification. We find that such an exercise has not been done in the present case. On the other hand, learned Commissioner chose to treat the depots as independent dealers requiring to be registered with the department for the purpose of issue of Cenvatable invoices. Indeed, the depots in this case were only ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioned in Rule 7(1)(a)(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and it was open to the Commissioner to point out deficiencies therein. The question now is whether the deficiencies noted by the Commissioner were enough to deny the benefit of Rule 9A ibid to the party. One defect noted by the Commissioner is non-mention of registration number of the factory and another defect is non-mention of date and time of removal of the goods from the depot. As a matter of fact, it was open to the Commissioner to ask the party to furnish what was missing in the documents. It is also found that, without having been asked to do so, the appellants, on their own, furnished the corresponding factory invoices accompanied by the manufacturers' certificates. The rele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
