TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the dealer s invoice can be established with the goods received by the dealer from the manufacturer. In the present case, there is no dispute that the goods were directly received by the appellant from the second stage dealer, namely, M/s Roshanlal Bhagirathmal and the invoices issued by M/s Roshanlal Bhagirathmal mentioned M/s Ashis Enterprise as the buyers/customers, while at the same time, the name of the appellant is mentioned as consignee . These documents cannot be rendered invalid for taking cenvat credit. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Ex. Appeal No.78317 of 2018 - FINAL ORDER NO.75775/2019 - Dated:- 19-6-2019 - MR. P.K.CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) None for Appellant No.(2) Shri S. S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have availed cenvat credit of ₹ 54,682/-, purchased through un-registered dealer, which do not qualify as valid documents as required under Rule 9 (1) of the said Rules and credit of duty paid as shown on such documents, is not available as per Rule 3 (1) ibid. The Adjudicating Authority disallowed the cenvat credit and ordered for recovery along with interest and imposed a penalty of an equal amount in terms of Rule 15 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On appeal, the order-in-original was upheld and the appeal was rejected. Being aggrieved, the appellant assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Heard the ld.D.R. for the Revenue and perused the appeal records. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Malwa Cotton Spg. Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh (supra), relying upon the Board Circular No. 96/7/95-CX dated 13-2-95 has held that mere mention of the words on account of the dealer on the invoices or the name of the dealer on the invoice, in itself, would not make the invoices ineligible documents for availing Modvat credit , so far as the goods have been directly received in the user s premises. Similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Prakash Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay (supra), wherein the Tribunal held that in a situation where the inputs were received from a manufacturer I but through a dealer, the Cenvat credit cannot be denied so long as the co-relation between goods received by the user manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
