TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no stock transfer amongst the aforesaid parties. On perusal of Rule 9(1)(b), it is found that the bar from availing credit on the supplementary invoice is only when the goods are sold to the recipient who has claimed the credit on the basis of supplementary invoices. There is no criterion laid down in the said Rules that the transferring unit should be a sister unit or a related party in order to become eligible for availing credit. The Revenue has not disputed the arrangements between the parties that the converted aluminium ingot has not been sold by the conversion agent to the assessee appellant - the restriction imposed under Rule 9(1)(b) has no application in the present case so as to deny the credit availed by the Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charges as per the written agreement with the Appellant. Further, the normal melting loss of 4.5% was also allowed for such conversion process. The said conversion agents are charging Central Excise Duty on the converted aluminium ingot after doing completion of conversion process. The Excise Duty charged by the said conversion agent is being availed as Cenvat Credit by the Appellant. 2.2 Proceedings were initiated by the Central Excise Department against the said conversion agents wherein it was alleged that there was short payment of Central Excise Duty due to undervaluation. Pursuant to the said proceedings, the said agents accepted the enhancement of assessment by 4% as pointed out by the Central Excise Department. The differential E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the assessee appellant. To support his arguments that restriction for availing credit will only apply in case of sale of goods by the supplier, he relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd. vs. CCE, 2005 (192) E.L.T. 892 (Tri. Bang) as well as the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd. vs CCE, 2010 (258) E.L.T. 62 (Kar). He also relied on the following decisions which has held the legal position in similar lines: United Phosphorus Ltd. vs. Commr, C. Ex S.T., Surat-II 2014 (313) E.L.T.418 (Tri. Ahmd.) Godrej Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai-II 2008 (232) E.L.T. 108 (Tri. Mumbai). 5. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g credit on the supplementary invoice is only when the goods are sold to the recipient who has claimed the credit on the basis of supplementary invoices. There is no criterion laid down in the said Rules that the transferring unit should be a sister unit or a related party in order to become eligible for availing credit. The Revenue has not disputed the arrangements between the parties that the converted aluminium ingot has not been sold by the conversion agent to the assessee appellant. In view of the above facts of the case and the legal position already laid down by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court as well as various coordinate Benches of this Tribunal, in my view, the restriction imposed under Rule 9(1)(b) has no application in the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
