TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ements/decisions in their favor allowing CENVAT credit in similar situations. Further simple reversal of the CENVAT credit at the asking of the Revenue does not debar the appellant to contest the same by filing a detailed reply to the SCN. Both the authorities have not considered the same and therefore the impugned order is without any reason and is passed in violation of principles of natural justice - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/918-920/2009-SM - Final Order No. 20366-20368/ 2017 - Dated:- 15-3-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. N. Anand, Adv For the Appellant Ms Ezhil Mathi, A.R. For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg Appellants have filed these three appeals against the impugned order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Credit availed on storage racks is not used for manufacture 4,17,271/- Appellant unit had availed Cenvat credit on inputs based on invoices which were addressed to the other units of the Appellant. 17,96,136/- Appellant availed credit in input servicessuch as testing of fabrics; dry cleaning services; courier services; GTA service and security service. This credit is alleged to be irregular. E/920/2009 August 2006 to May 2007 8,68,262/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit, the department found that the appellant has availed irregular and inadmissible credit and on this allegation various show-cause notices were issued for different periods alleging contravention of various provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules on the grounds stated (supra). The appellant filed reply to various show-cause notices issued by the Department and after following the due process of law the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise passed orders-in-original confirming the demand along with the interest and penalty under Section 11AB and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1944 read with Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules and also appropriated the CENVAT Credit already reversed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the said orders-in-or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s admitted the allegations of ineligible availment of credit and has not contested the departments allegation by producing evidences and therefore he did not dwell the case on merits. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the lower authorities have found easy way of confirming adjudicating levies ignoring the fact that the appellant had contested the case on merits from the stage of reply to the show-cause notice. He further submitted that the CENVAT credit has been denied on the ground that the invoices on the basis of which credit was taken by the appellant was in some other units address and in some cases credit was taken on photocopy of invoices and in certain cases, the appellant has availed the CENVT credit on capit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s namely that the appellant had received the inputs in question inside their factory, appellant is a multi-unit company, the inputs in question were duty-paid and the inputs were used in the appellants factory for manufacture of excisable goods which were ultimately exported. The Revenue did not contest these material facts in the show-cause notice. Learned counsel has further relied upon the decisions in the case of Larsen Toubro Ltd Vs CCE [1994 (72)ELT 948(T) wherein under similar facts and circumstances, the Tribunal held that the duty paying documents showing address of other unit of the same manufacturer is a valid duty paying document and there is also no need for endorsement of the invoice by the other unit to the unit which recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the first year and 50% credit in the subsequent year. But in this case, since he has availed 100% in the first year and has not utilized the same and for the subsequent year he is entitled to avail 50% therefore it will not result in to any loss to the Revenue. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following authorities. 1) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Vs CCE[2005(187)ELT 241(Tri-Del)] 2) Bombay Paints Ltd Vs CCE [2015(326)ELT 335(Tru-Mum)] 3) Sanghi Industries Ltd Vs CCE [2013 (294)ELT 303(Tri-Ahmd)] 4) Sunder Ispat Ltd Vs CCE, F.O.No. A/30538/16 dt 13.6.2016 On the other hand learned A.R. reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that once the appellant has reversed The CENVAT credit by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
