9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceived duty paid capital goods from ITC Ltd.'s factory at Kidderpore and Saharanpur under the cover of duty paying invoice raised by ITC. During verification and scrutiny of ER-I returns Respondent-Department had denial it CENVAT credit to the tune of Rs. 1,64,29,754/- as well as issued show-cause notice to it proposing recovery of the said amount alongwith interest, penalty etc. The duty interest and penalty were confirmed by the adjudicating authority in the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I vide Order-in-Original No. 38/SMP/MI/ 2016-17 dated 29.11.2016. However, in the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed it to the tune of Rs. 1,44,60,387/- with consequential relief but denied c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CE v. Jyoti Limited, 2008 (223) ELT 171 (Guj.) to support his stand. 4. Per Contra, learned Authorised Representative for the Respondent-Department attempted to go into merit of the case as a whole and wanted to establish that even partial grant of CENVAT credit by the Commissioner (Appeals) was erroneous by bringing a thin line distinction between the word 'duty' and 'amount paid' with reference to judicial decisions and more specifically to the finding of this Tribunal in Pushpaman Forgings 2002 (149) ELT 490 (Tri- Mumbai) that has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2003 (153) ELT A89 (SC) despite the fact that, apparently to remove such a confusion or else to overcome the difficulty faced by the assessee, afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... marked as 'This is stock transfer, not sale' and further, the said transaction is not a sale transaction as the consignee shown in the invoice as 'M/s. Tobacco Co(India) A/c ITC Ltd.,' which indicates it does not involve sale. I am therefore in agreement with the Original Adjudicating Authority's findings that the transaction value in the invoice does not appear to have any basis. The credit of the duty paid taken against invoice no. CAP 0000042 dated 20.06.2014 & 4 case against invoice no. 0000009 dated 12.06.2014 therefore cannot be considered as an amount paid under provision of Rule 3(5A)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and cannot be availed as Cenvat Credit in terms of Rules 3(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, therefore i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
