2018 (5) TMI 601 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI – CENVAT credit – appellant had not received the goods of the description mentioned in the duty paying documents of the registered dealers – Held that: – The description given in the registered dealer invoice in the column of manufacturer tallies in the description given in the excise invoice in the registered dealers invoice and the description given in the commercial invoice is in accordance with the purchase order number reflected on all the documents – appellant cannot be put to any further strict proof as to call for the documents received by the dealer from the manufacturer and tally the description mentioned in the invoices raised by the registered dealer etc. – credit allowed.
–
Time Limitation – Held that: – even if the records are audited, audit party will confine its findings to the cenvatable invoice and would not go into the documents like inward register and delivery challan and the audit party presumed that CENVAT invoice wo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
d by the registered dealers was different from the description mentioned in the original duty paying documents of the manufacturer coming to a conclusion that appellant had not received the goods of the description mentioned in the duty paying documents of the registered dealers, show cause notice was issued for demand of the amount availed as CENVAT credit with interest and also for imposition of penalties. Appellant contested the show cause notice on merits as well as on limitation. The Adjudicating Authority did not agree with the contentions raised and confirmed the demands with interest and imposed penalties on main appellant as well as the individual on the director. 3. Learned Counsel after taking the Bench through the records submits that appellant places purchase orders for the materials as per the required and procured the same after releasing the purchase orders on the suppliers either manufacturers or registered dealers; the said materials are accepted only if they conform
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
se verification where the registered dealer had procured the goods as per the description on manufacturing invoice. He would submit that the following case laws as laid down this proposition of law and which are in favour of the main appellant herein. i. CCE & Service Tax Vs. Juhi Alloys Ltd., [2014 (302) ELT 487 (ALL.)] ii. CCE, Kanpur Vs. Juhi Alloys Ltd., [2013 (296) ELT 533 (Tri. DEL)] iii. CCE & C. Ex, Kanpur Vs. RHL Profiles Pvt. Ltd., [2013 (292) ELT 313 (Tri. DEL)] iv. Luxmi Metal Industries Vs. CCE, Delhi [2013 (287) ELT 487 (Tri. DEL)] v. Transpek Industries Ltd., Vs. CCE, Vadodara [2010 (249) ELT 91 (Tri. AHMD)] vi. Elveety Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2001 (130) ELT 199 (Tri. Chennai)] vii. CCE, Jaipur Vs. Unichem Trading Co Pvt. Ltd., [1998 (102) ELT 284 (Tri.)] It is his submission that the demands are hit by limitation as audit parties are fortified the records regularly and the same documents were produced before them; no objections were raised by t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ed dealer, there is a correlation between the goods ordered, delivery challan, commercial invoices and the first stage registered dealer invoice conforms of mentioning the purchase orders and the invoice numbers. The description given in the registered dealer invoice in the column of manufacturer tallies in the description given in the excise invoice in the registered dealers invoice and the description given in the commercial invoice is in accordance with the purchase order number reflected on all the documents. We find that appellant cannot be put to any further strict proof as to call for the documents received by the dealer from the manufacturer and tally the description mentioned in the invoices raised by the registered dealer etc. This law is now fairly settled by the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Juhi Alloys Ltd., (supra) and various other decisions of the Tribunal as mentioned herein above. On this point itself, the impugned order needs to be set as
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =