TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Ms. Sonal Singh, Advocate for the appellant Dr. J. Harish, Deputy Commissioner(AR) for the respondent ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan The present appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No.69/2003 dt. 31/03/2003. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of biscuits and other goods on job work basis for M/s. Britannia Industries Ltd.(BIL for short). The ingredients and packing materials are provided to the appellant by BIL. The inputs are ordered directly by BIL but received directly in the factory of the appellant. However the invoices for such inputs are in the name of BIL but stand endorsed in favour of the appellant. The dispute (for the period 01/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6) ELT 364 (Tri.)] which has also been followed in ever so many decisions. He also brought to our notice that the Hon ble Gujarat High Court has also approved the Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE C vs. Marigold Coatings P. Ltd. [2016(337) ELT 515 (Guj.)]. 5. We note that major changes were made in the procedure prescribed in availing CENVAT credit w.e.f. 01/04/1994. The significant change was that from this date, gate passes which were prescribed as documents to be issued at the time of clearance of goods on payment of duty and on which the credits were allowed to be taken, have been replaced by invoices . Upto 01/04/1994, credits were allowed on the basis of gate passes with upto two endorsements. However in the changed p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... followed the decision of the Larger Bench in identical circumstances. In view of the contrary decisions by different High Courts, we are of the view that we are required to follow the more recent decision. The decision in the case of Allahabad High Court has been given on 29/09/2015 whereas the Gujarat High Court has delivered it on 25/04/2016. Consequently, we decide to follow the decision of the Gujarat High Court. The Hon ble Gujarat High Court held as follows:- 6. From the above discussion, it can be seen that the short controversy that arises in this appeal is whether respondent-assessee was entitled to take Cenvat credit on the inputs on the basis of documents endorsed by the consignee. We notice that in exercise of powers under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that after issuance of notification dated 4-7-1994, invoices can be issued only by a registered dealer and only then Modvat credit can be claimed on the strength of such invoices. The requirements of notification dated 30-3-1994 are mandatory in nature and no credit would be available until the inputs are received in the factory under the cover of invoice issued under Rule 52A. Thus the endorsement of the invoice is not provided in this Rule after such statutory changes. 7. This decision was completely lost sight of by the Tribunal. We find that major changes were made in the procedure prescribed in availing Cenvat credit. By virtue of such changed procedure, only upon the invoices being issued under Rule 52A, the Cenvat credit, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
