Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (2) TMI 144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the supplier on the capital goods. There is nothing on record to show that the goods have not been received in the factory of the appellant - denial of credit not justified. Whether the allegation against the supplier that no goods were manufactured at their factory is correct? - Held that: - reliance placed in the decision of the case of CCE Vs. Juhi Alloys Ltd. [2014 (1) TMI 1475 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], where The goods were demonstrated to have travelled to the premises of the assessee under the cover of Form 31 issued by the Trade Tax Department, and the ledger account as well as the statutory records establish the receipt of the goods. In such a situation, it would be impractical to require the assessee to go behind the records m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... but the appellant did not find favour with the Commissioner (A). 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the confirmation of demand against him is not sustainable in law for the reason that the appellant is a bonafide purchaser who purchased the relevant capital goods against proper invoices on payment of excise duty. That there is no allegation against the appellant that he was party to the fraud or collusion with the supplier M/s. Ashok Electrical Stampings Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted that during adjudication proceedings, the invoices as well as transportation receipts and other relevant documents were produced before the adjudicating authority but those were ignored while passing the impugned order. He also assailed the impugned o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ken on the capital goods cannot be denied. She also submitted the plea of time bar in as much as period of dispute is 2004-05 but the show cause notice has been issued only in 2009. In the absence of any allegation of fraud against the appellant, the demand will be hit by time bar. 7. Ld. DR on the other hand supported the orders passed by the lower authorities. He submitted that the investigations undertaken by Revenue against M/s. Ashok Electrical Stampings Pvt. Ltd. (Supplier) have established that they have not undertaken manufacturer of the capital goods in their factory. The report of the Charted Engineer establishes that no such manufacture could have happened at the supplier's factory. Under the circumstances he argued that t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Credit is that buyer of inputs / capital goods receives the excisable items along with invoices evidencing payment of duty and immediately thereafter is allowed to take Cenvat Credit of the excise duty so paid. It is not expected that the buyer will carry out verification of the Accounts of the supplier to find out whether the Central Excise duty has actually been paid on the inputs / capital goods. From the records of the case, I find that Cenvat Credit has been availed on the basis of invoices issued by the supplier. I do not find any evidence on record establishing that excise duty has not been paid by the supplier on the capital goods. There is nothing on record to show that the goods have not been received in the factory of the appella .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... situation, it would be impractical to require the assessee to go behind the records maintained by the first stage dealer. The assessee, in the present case, was found to have duly acted with all reasonable diligence in its dealing with the first stage dealer. The view which the Tribunal has taken is consistent with the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in CCE East Singhbhum Vs. Tata Motors Ltd. 2013 (294) ELT 394 (Jhar.) where it was held as follows: Once a buyer of inputs receives invoices of excisable items, unless factually it is established to the contrary, it will be presumed that when payments have been made in respect of those inputs on the basis of invoices, the buyer is entitled to assume that the excise duty has b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates