9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the course of scrutiny of records by the Central Excise Officers, it was noticed that the invoices raised by the manufacturer mentioned the appellant as a consignee and the buyers of the goods were someone-else. According to the Revenue, the appellants purchased the goods from the unregistered dealers (appearing as buyers in the invoice) and not from any manufacturer or registered dealers. 2.2 A show-cause notice dated 20.12.2007 was issued proposing to recover CENVAT Credit of Rs. 2,09,162/- and Cess 4183/- along with interest and to impose penalty. The Adjudicating Authority dropped the charges framed in the show-cause-cum demand notice. The Department filed the appeal before the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit under sub-rule (1) shall be taken unless all the particulars as prescribed under the Central Excise Rules, 2002 or the Service Tax Rules, 1994, as the case may be, are contained in the said document : [(3) * * * * *] (4) The CENVAT credit in respect of input or capital goods purchased from a first stage dealer or second stage dealer shall be allowed only if such first stage dealer or second stage dealer, as the case may be, has maintained records indicating the fact that the input or capital goods was supplied from the stock on which duty was paid by the producer of such input or capital goods and only an amount of such duty on pro rata basis has been indicated in the invoice issued by him. (5) The manufacturer of final products o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocuments as indicated in Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Further, the appellant as manufacturer of the final product maintained the records as provided in Rule 9(5) of the Rules. 6. In my considered view, Rule 9(4) is applicable in respect of maintenance of the records by the dealers. It is a case that the appellant availed the credit on the basis of the documents through a middleman and the inputs were directly received by the appellant from the dealer who was registered with the Central Excise authorities. 7. I find that the Tribunal on an identical issue in the case of Jupiter Alloy & Steel (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Kolkata-IV, vide Order No.FO/75874/2016 dated 23.08.2016 allowed the credit. The relevant portion of the said decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned by the Board. I am directed to say that as the movement of goods in such cases will take place on the manufacturer's invoice issued under the Rule 52A which will also be treated as a valid duty paying document and no separate invoice under the provisions of Rule 57G is required to be issued in such cases, such persons taking part in transit sale need not get themselves registered." 4.2 From the above clarification it is clear that such persons who are taking part in transit sale need not get themselves registered as per provisions of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1994. In this clarification it is nowhere mentioned that dealer taking part in the transit sale should be a registered dealer. In view of the above procedure foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
