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 →

M/s IPF Vikram India Ltd. Versus CCE, Indore

2018 (1) TMI 470 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

CENVAT credit of CVD - case of appellant is that since the duty paid goods were received in the factory for the intended purpose, Cenvat credit cannot be denied on the sole ground that the bill of entry does not reflect the name of the appellant as the consignee - Held that: - With regard to the maintainability of the bill of entry for the purpose of taking Cenvat credit, it is found that the said bill of entry does not mention the name of the appellant as the consignee. Thus, technically the ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

espect of CVD amount should be available to the appellant. - Appeal allowed. - E/50510/2017-SM - Final Order No. 58409/2017 - Dated:- 6-12-2017 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Shri J.M. Sharma, Advocate - for the appellant Shri K. Poddar, D.R. - for the respondent ORDER The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a contract manufacturer for M/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (M/s HUL) and is engaged in the manufacture of detergents (Wheel, Vim) etc. for M/s HUL. The detergents manuf .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Bill of Entry, the goods covered there under were diverted by M/s HUL directly from the port to the appellant s factory. After receipt of the inputs covered under the bill of entry, the appellant availed the Cenvat credit of CVD amount mentioned in the bill of entry. However, taking of Cenvat credit was disputed by the department on the ground that the bill of entry was not in the name of the appellant and as such, such documents cannot be termed as prescribed document under Rule 9 of the Cenva .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d demand. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 16.11.2016, the appellant has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant submits that sodium tripolyphosphate imported vide bill of entry dated 20.1.2009, upon assessment were cleared by the principal manufacturer M/s HUL directly from the port to the factory of the appellant. He also referred to the certificate furnished by M/s HUL (placed at page 30 in the paper book), stating, that total qu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the goods were loaded in the port and delivered at the appellants site. Thus, he submits that since the duty paid goods were received in the factory for the intended purpose, Cenvat credit cannot be denied on the sole ground that the bill of entry does not reflect the name of the appellant as the consignee. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR appearing for the Revenue submits that the Cenvat statute recognizes only the bill of entry and not endorsed copy of the bill of entry/invoice for the purpos .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

availed by the appellant. Thus, he submits that such certificate cannot be accepted as a proper and valid document, entitling the appellant to take Cenvat credit. He further submits that the date of certificate produced by the appellant does not correspond to the date of importation of the goods. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 5. In this case, the fact is not under dispute that the appellant has been engaged by M/s HUL for manufacture of detergent on its behalf. In this case, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

&M Transport Company and to that effect, the consignment notes were issued by such transport agency. Further, I also find that the consignment note issued by the transporter mentioning the name of the consignee also mentions that the goods were transported to the appellant on account of M/s HUL. On perusal of the Custom s endorsed Cenvat declaration issued by HUL and also consignment notes produced by the appellant, I find that the goods were diverted from the port to the appellant s factory .....

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