TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently, they have cleared the inputs to HV Axles Ltd as such on reversal of the same credit availed at the time of its receipt - there is no infirmity in the initial availment of the credit and its subsequent clearance as such on reversal of the credit availed. Accordingly, the denial of credit of Rs 15,31,074/- is not sustainable. Credit availed without invoice of Rs.19,91,913/- - Credit availed on other than DFT copy of invoice of Rs.5,33,208/- HELD THAT:- The denial credit on this ground is beyond the remand direction as well as the scope of the previous Order-in-Original, which merely denied the credit for nonsubmission of letter, which has been provided before the denovo adjudication - Once the remand direction clearly stated that during the relevant period there was no requirement to produce the original copies for defacement, the insistence on the production of the same or denial the credit on the basis that the Appellant did not produce DFT copy of the invoice, for availing the credit is legally not tenable. Even legally, there was no requirement during the relevant period to avail credit only on the DFT copy of the invoice, as evident from the provisions of amended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per : K. ANPAZHAKAN : Four show cause notices were issued for recovery of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.3.39 Crore wrongly availed by the Appellant, M/s. Tata Engineering Locomotive Works Ltd., Jamshedpur (now M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., Jamshedpur in short TML), during the period April 2000 to July 2000. The Commissioner, Central excise, Jamshedpur vide his Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2004 disallowed credit of Rs.2.57 Crore only. 2. Being aggrieved by the above order of the Commissioner, TML filed an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order in so far as it related to denial of credit amounting to Rs.2,14,05,637/- out of Rs.2.57 crores. The Tribunal vide its order No.A-346-349/KOL/2010 dated 20.04.2010 allowed the appeal in so far as it had denied the credit of Rs.61,22,262/- and Rs.1,11,35,767/- and remanded the case for a fresh decision in so far the disallowance of credit of Rs.41,47,609/- in the order dated 31.03.04, with the observation as under:- 8. In respect of denial of credit of Rs.41,47,609.00, we find that appellant submitted 54 invoices under cover of a letter dated 16/11/2000 to the jurisdictional superintendent. In the adjudication order, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the copy of the said letter to the adjudicating authority. However, in the Impugned Order, the credit has been denied on the ground that the said goods have been transferred to M/s H.V.Axles Ltd and hence the same were not used in the factory of production. The Appellant stated that this a different ground which is beyond the remand direction as well as the scope of the previous Order-in-Original. which merely denied the credit for non-submission of letter, which has been provided. The Appellant stated that the finding in the impugned order is based on piecemeal and incorrect reading of the letter. The letter clearly said that the goods were received in the factory of the Appellant under cover the DFT invoices, based on which the credit availed. Thereafter, the goods were cleared to HV Axles Ltd. on further issuance of invoices and dispatch documents which were also provided to the department. Payment of duty upon clearance of goods to HV Axles is evidenced by this letter which has never been in dispute. The only dispute in the present proceeding was regarding eligibility of the said credit at the time of receipt thereof in the factory, which was justified by providing DFT invoice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoice if there is no dispute about the receipt of goods in the factory. Inasmuch as there is no dispute on the duty paid character and receipt of goods in the factory, we hold that the credit cannot be denied on this count. The Appellant relied on the following decisions, in support of their contention that credit cannot be denied on procedural grounds: Adhunik Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, Bolpur, 2010 (262) ELT 551 (Tri-Kol.) The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. v. CCE ST, Trichy, 2019- TIOL-1845-CESTAT-MAD Shivam Electrical Industries v. UOI, 2018 (359) E.L.T. 46 (J K) Cords Cable Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur-I, 2015 (320) E.L.T. 155 (Tri.) Pepsico India Holding P. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-II, 2017 (349) E.L.T. 665 (Tri. - Mumbai) We observe that the above cited decisions supports the case of the Appellant. Cenvat credit cannot be denied on the ground that they have not produced Transporters copy of the invoice for availment of the credit. We observe that during the material period there was no requirement of submitting the Transportr's copy to avail the credit. Since that requirement has been done away with in the Rule, the credit can be availed on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
