9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8,60,424/-, additional duty of Rs.3,03,722, H.E. Cess and S.H.E. Cess totaling Rs.11,89,958/- on the strength of nine invoices. It was alleged that these invoices were not consigned to the registered address of the Appellant's manufacturing premises. The invoices accompanying input were consigned to their earlier office address at P-5, CIT Road, Kolkata- 700054. It is the case of the Department that the CENVAT Credit pertained to a period prior to registration and there is no scope for accepting Cenvatable documents which do not bear the name of their factory premises. The Appellant had taken CENVAT Credit on the duty paid goods on the above-mentioned inputs and utilized the said credit for payment of duty for clearance of their final produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instant scenario, the appellant has not been able to produce quantitative details of the inputs that were in their possession on the date when the manufactured goods become dutiable. Rather, the appellant started to maintain account of input credit only after 01/03/2013. Hence considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no infirmity in the order of the Adjudicating Authority in disallowing the impugned credit." Hence the present Appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 3. I find that the Ld.Adjudicating authority has observed in Para 5.11 of the Adjudication order as under:- "5.11 The noticee pleaded for their invoices with earlier Office address for consideration with judicial de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kar.)] has observed as under:- "7. Insofar as requirement of registration with the department as a condition precedent for claiming Cenvat credit is concerned, learned counsel appearing for both parties were unable to point out any provision in the Cenvat Credit Rules which impose such restriction. In the absence of a statutory provision which prescribes that registration is mandatory and that if such a registration is not made the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of refund, the three authorities committed a serious error in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground which is not existence in law. Therefore, said finding recorded by the Tribunal as well as by the lower authorities cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
