9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 879X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ff Act, 1985. A show cause cum demand notice dated 04.04.2012 was issued alleging that the appellant-assessee had taken inadmissible Cenvat credit on supplementary invoices Nos. 786 and 789 both dated 29.05.2010 issued by M/s.Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. (Unit-I) at a lower rate of price for clearance of sponge iron to the appellant-assessee. It has been alleged in the show cause notice that the appellant-assessee availed the Cenvat credit wrongly on the basis of aforesaid supplementary invoices and utilized the credit amounting to Rs. 1,86,750/- contravening the provisions of Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and proposed to disallow the same. Subsequently, the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original disallowed the credit a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid the required duty by issuing supplementary invoices Nos.786 to 791 dated 29.05.2010 including the invoices Nos.786 and 789. It is his submission that they have rightly availed the Cenvat Credit on the basis of said invoices and the demand is totally erroneous and the allegations made in the impugned order are absolutely baseless and without any facts. (b) The learned General Manager (Taxation) further argued that they had received the supplementary invoices from the supplier M/s.Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. (Unit-I) against purchase of goods. The said goods have been used captively in the plant for manufacturing of excisable finished goods. Proper excise invoices were received against receipt of goods as input and therefore there is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actory to another factory of the same manufacturer and under the same Commissionerate. M/s.Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. (Unit-I) transferred the finished goods to M/s.Jai Salasar Balaji Industries Ltd. (appellant-assessee) was not sale, but a stock transfer. In case of stock transfer the provision of Rule 9(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is not applicable. (f) The appellant referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Godrej India Vs. CCE [2008 (121) ELT 108, wherein it was held that Rule 9(1)(b) applies only when there is sale. 3. Learned Authorized Representative for the respondent Revenue reiterated the discussions and findings of the lower authorities. 4. Heard both sides through video conferencing and perused the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
