Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Mr. Niraj Kejariwal, M/s Ampoules and Vials Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Versus CCE, Thane

2017 (12) TMI 379 - CESTAT MUMBAI

CENVAT credit - job-work - case of Revenue is that the appellant/job worker have not received inputs namely Stainless Steel Patta/Patti which was claimed to have used for manufacture of utensils by the job worker on behalf of the appellant - Held that: - merely because the description mentioned in some of the invoices as SSCR coils does not prove that appellant's job worker have not received Patta/Patti for the reason that even Patta/Patti may or may not be in coil or strips form. Therefore this .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ch job work goods or otherwise, they are legally entitled for the CENVAT credit in respect of inputs sent to the job worker in terms of Rule 4(5)(a) of the CCR, 2004. - The Adjudicating Authority as well as Commissioner (Appeals) have not considered the Octroi receipt in defence of the appellant which is very vital evidence as to conclude the present matter the same needs to be reconsidered - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. E/1943 & 1944/10 - Dated:- 17-11-2017 - Shri Ramesh Na .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he department s case the appellant/job worker have not received inputs namely Stainless Steel Patta/Patti which was claimed to have used for manufacture of utensils by the job worker on behalf of the appellant. The adjudicating authority relied upon following evidence to hold that the inputs were not received either by the appellant or by the job worker:- (i) Out of 42 invoices involved in the present case, in respect of 32 invoices the Bhilad Check Post of the Rajasthan had given the report tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the above evidence that the input were not received by the job worker therefore denied the CENVAT credit. 3. Shri Rajesh Ostwal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant have submitted Octroi receipts in respect of almost 19 invoices. The said Octroi receipt bears the details of invoice of which credit was availed. Therefore a general report given by the Bhilad Check Post cannot be accepted. He submits that since a fire was broken in the factory most of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he description given in some of the invoices as SSCR coil is also correct as the Patta/Patti is in the form of coil, for these reasons the CENVAT credit cannot be denied. He submits that all the suppliers have admittedly in their respective statements stated that the goods have been sold to the appellant as per invoice on which credit was taken. Similarly all the job workers also admitted receipt of the goods on behalf of the appellant except in one case i.e. M/s Ambika Industries who denied rec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and goods were manufacture on job work basis by the job worker there is no condition that the appellant carried out manufacturing activity in their factory. He submits that it is permissible under law to send the input for job work directly from the supplier of input to the job worker so long processed goods have been cleared on payment of duty by the appellant, CENVAT credit cannot be denied on the ground that appellant have not carried out manufacturing process. He submits that the Octroi rece .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he trucks mentioned in the invoices of Rajasthan based parties were not passed through the Check Post, the goods were not transported to the Maharashtra based job worker of the appellant. This is sufficient evidence to hold that the appellant have taken CENVAT credit without receipt of the inputs. He further submits as per the statement of job worker it was proved that the goods received by the job worker i.e. Patta/Patti is different from the goods mentioned in the invoice i.e. SSCR coils. For .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The report of Bhilad Check Post is not supported by any other record. Regarding the Octroi receipt it was produced by the appellant before the adjudicating authority, who has brushed aside the same on the ground that said Octroi receipt was not submitted during the investigation. I am surprised to know such vital evidence which is issued by the Government Authority why it cannot be submitted at the stage while replying to show-cause notice. If the adjudicating authority had any doubt about the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version