TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d tally the description mentioned in the invoices raised by the registered dealer etc. - credit allowed. Time Limitation - Held that: - even if the records are audited, audit party will confine its findings to the cenvatable invoice and would not go into the documents like inward register and delivery challan and the audit party presumed that CENVAT invoice would tally with the physical description of the goods. Suffice to say that these findings are not in consonance with the law - extended period cannot be invoked. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1544 & 1545/2011 - A/30469-30470/2018 - Dated:- 19-2-2018 - MR. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. C.J. MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri M. V Sridhar, Adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... releasing the purchase orders on the suppliers either manufacturers or registered dealers; the said materials are accepted only if they conform to the specifications mentioned in the related purchase orders. It is the submission that if the materials do not conform to the specifications they are returned back. It is the submission that for the goods received from registered dealer, the documents are excise invoice of a registered dealer, delivery challan of registered dealer and commercial invoice (tax invoice). It is his submission that they ensure that the documents on which credit is availed contains all the information as prescribed in sub rule 2 of rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules read with Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules. He would th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the premises; the said submissions were made before the Adjudicating Authority but it was not considered in it is correct perspective. 4. Learned Departmental Representative reiterates the findings of the lower authorities and supports the order. 5. On careful consideration of the submissions made, we find that the facts are not much in dispute. It is the case of the Revenue that the main appellant had availed CENVAT credit wrongly as they are able to explain as to why and how the description of the goods actually received do not tally with the cenvatable invoice issued by manufacturer of the goods and the statements given by the dealers leads to irresistable conclusion is that the goods received are not supported by cenvatable invoic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the audit party presumed that CENVAT invoice would tally with the physical description of the goods. Suffice to say that these findings are not in consonance with the law as laid down by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I Vs. MTR Foods Ltd., [2012 (282) ELT 196] and followed by Trans Engineers India Pvt. Ltd., [2015 (40) STR 490 (Tri. Mum)], we hold the question of limitation has to be held in favour of the main appellant herein. In view of the foregoing, we find appeal is acceptable on merits as well as on limitation, accordingly, we hold that the demands raised on the main appellant are unsustainable and liable to be set aside and we do so. Since we are set aside the demands, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
