Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (9) TMI 1197

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t could not establish the receipt/consumption of the inputs in the factory of Silvasa, credit is not admissible to the appellant. Accordingly, the Cenvat credit was denied. 2. Shri. Prakash Shah, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that only for the reason that the bill of entry is in the name of Head Office, credit cannot be denied if it is established that the goods imported under the said bill of entry have been received in the factory of the appellant that is in Silvasa Unit and used for the manufacture of final product. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- * Union of India Vs. Marmagoa Steel Ltd.-2008 (229) ELT 481 (SC.) * Marmagoa Steel Ltd Vs. Union of India -2005 (192) ELT 82 (Bom.) * Lalit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... denied. He further submits that, in the show cause notice extended period was invoked and confirmed by both the lower authorities. He submits that the finding on the limitation on the extended period is that, the appellant has not disclosed that the credit was taken on invalid document. He submits that the credit was taken on the bill of entry even though it has name and address of the Head Office. It is an admissible document for taking Cenvat Credit as per the judgment cited above. Therefore there is no reason to invoke the extended period in the facts of the present case. 3. Shri. Dharmendra Kanjani, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding in the impugned order. He further submits that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the adjudicating authority as well as the commissioner (Appeals) given the finding that the appellant could not satisfy the Audit Officer with the documents regarding receipt and use of the goods. I completely disagree with the adjudicating authority for the reason that once the show cause notice was issued, it is the adjudicating authority to satisfy himself that whether the charge made in the show cause notice is established or not. He cannot depend on the Audit Officers' view otherwise whole purpose of adjudication will be of no use. As submitted by the Learned Counsel and referred to the various documents that the documents were produced before the adjudicating authority it was incumbent on the adjudicating authority to verify those do .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates