Industrial Filters & Fabrics P. Ltd. Versus CGST & C.E., Indore
Central Excise
2019 (1) TMI 1426 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 23-1-2019
Excise Appeal No. E/52849/2018 [SM] – FINAL ORDER No. 50106/2019
Central Excise
MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present for the Appellant: Ms. Priyanka Goel, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Ms. Tamana Alam, DR
ORDER
PER: RACHNA GUPTA
The present appeal has been preferred against the order in appeal No. 188-18-19 dated 28.06.2018. The adjudication is with respect to the Show Cause Notice (SCN) No. 2542 dated 27.09.2017. The appellant herein are engaged in manufacture of filter bags and are also are availing cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. During the course of audit of records for the year 2015-16, the Department observed that the appellant had taken input credit of Rs. 4,53,909/- wrongly on the invoices which were more than one year old. Resultantly, the said cenvat credit
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) in the Order under challenge has made a wrong observation that the appellant has failed to produce any evidence to suffice that entry record receipt of inputs made prior the date of Notification and that the said material was received prior to the Notification as the invoices relied upon by the appellant only are the sufficient proof for the fact that material was also received prior the date of said Notification. Order under challenges, is therefore, prayed to be set aside. Appeal is prayed to be allowed.
3. Per contra Ld. AR, Ms. Tamana Alam has justified the order impressing upon para 7.2 thereof. It is submitted that the Commissioner has not disputed the fact that the invoices are issued prior the date of Notification but the relief has been declined for want of the relevant documents/ evidence. Order is therefore sustainable and appeal deserves dismissal.
4. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record, I observe that the SCN has
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
g received on the date of invoice itself. All the four invoices are issued prior 01.09.2014 i.e. prior date when for the first time the concept of limitation for availing credit was introduced. The findings of Commissioner(Appeals) are therefore apparently wrong while observing that the evidence about receipt of material is missing on record. The order is definitely liable to be set aside. Finally, I draw my support from the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of C.C.E., Vishakapatnam as relied upon by the appellant. Tribunal has observed and held as follows:
On the second point as to whether the relevant date for effect of the notification placing the time limit is the date of invoice or the date on which credit has been taken, I find that Tribunal in the case of Suryadev Alloys & Power Pvt. Ltd (supra) and Indian Potash Ltd. (supra) and Voss Exotech Automotive Pvt. Ltd. has held that the date of the invoice has to be after 01.09.2014 for limitation of six months to apply. I
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =