TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit on mere technicalities. In view of the various decided cases and also in view of the fact that Rule 9 itself recognizes that the Assistant Commissioner may allow the credit even if the duty paid documents do not contain all the particulars but contain essential details like duty payable, description of goods, value, registration number of issuing person etc., we find no justifiable reason for denial of credit on inputs in the present case. Cenvat credit - capital goods like Asbestos, Gasket Sheets, Chequered Plates - classification not fitting into the category of 'Capital Goods' in terms of Rule 2(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that:- the nature of usage, as submitted by the appellants, that these are, in fact, used along wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd capital goods in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The present proceedings are relating to denial of Cenvat Credit on various inputs and capital goods availed by the appellants during the period 01 .04.2007 to 30.04.2009. The total credit denied is ₹ 9,71,21,082/-. Out of this amount, an amount of ₹ 8,63,52,628/- relates to credit on inputs and ₹ 1,07,67,636/- relates to credit on capital goods. The original authority denied credit on these items and ordered the recovery mainly on the ground that the duty paying documents are not having full and complete address of the appellants. Some credit on capital goods was also disallowed on the ground that those items were not classifiable as 'Capital Goods' in terms o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 018/- has been denied on the ground that the goods do not qualify the category of 'Capital Goods' as their classification is under Chapter 59, 68 and 72. It is submitted by the appellants that these items were specifically used for joining pipes and in fabrication and setting up of Solvent Recovery Plant falling under Chapter Heading 8479. (e) Cenvat Credit of ₹ 93,22,980/- taken on capital goods was denied with no specific allegation or finding. The purchase order and the suppliers' invoices clearly mention the nature of product and the duty paid on the same. Denial of credit without any reason is not legally tenable. 3. The learned counsel relied on various decided cases to reiterate his submissions. 4. It was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We noticed that the appellants' unit is not located in a place where door numbers etc. are specifically indicated. The unit is located in a village of Saidpura and Tehsil Derabassi, Distt. Mohali. Apparently, this covers both Unit-I and Uni-ll of the appellants giving rise to allegation of improper documentation. We find the duty has been discharged by the appellants and there is no allegation that the goods have been diverted. No credit has been availed by Unit-I located in the same address across the road. In such situation, when all the substantial conditions have been admittedly fulfilled, we find no legal justification in denying credit on mere technicalities. In Oriental Carbon Chemicals Ltd. vs CCE ST, Gurgaon-ll , 2016 (41 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. In view of the various decided cases and also in view of the fact that Rule 9 itself recognizes that the Assistant Commissioner may allow the credit even if the duty paid documents do not contain all the particulars but contain essential details like duty payable, description of goods, value, registration number of issuing person etc, we find no justifiable reason for denial of credit on inputs in the present case. 9. Regarding denial of credit on capital goods, we find two main categories of such goods. As already discussed, credit on certain items like Asbestos, Gasket Sheets, Chequered Plates was denied on the ground of their classification not fitting into the category of 'Capital Goods' in terms of Rule 2(a) of Cenvat Cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms not having indication of Unit II in the bills of entry. We have perused the purchase order and the documents for supply of items in respect of some of the capital goods and we find that the objections raised by the Revenue is not of substantial nature touching upon eligibility of capital goods, duty paid nature of such goods or receipt of such capital goods in the premises of the appellants. As already noted, the objections relate to Unit-II not figuring in the documents, As already recorded by us that substantial benefit otherwise available cannot be denied on such point in the absence of any of the allegations, as stated above. 11. In view of the above discussion and analysis, we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
