M\/s Uravi T & Wedge Lamps Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Thane
Central Excise
2018 (5) TMI 1118 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 2-5-2018
Appeal No. E\/87806\/17 – ORDER NO. A\/86337 \/ 2018
Central Excise
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
\nShri Stebin Mathew, Advocate for Appellant
\nShri S.J. Sahu, AC (AR) for Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: Ramesh Nair
\nThe issue involved is that whether the appellant is entitled for CENVAT Credit on the strength of invoice issued by an importer, who is registered as first stage dealer. The case of the department is that the supplier being an importer could have been registered separately as an importer. Since the appellant is registered only as <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n n and it is not notification by which rule 9 was amended. Therefore, this clarification will have retrospective effect. Accordingly, the importer was not required to be registered separately once he was registered as first stage dealer. He takes support from this Tribunal's judgment on identical issue in the case of Commissioner of CGST, Thane Rural Vs. Western Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd. – 2018-TIOL-08-CESTAT-MUM. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ch CENVAT Credit has been taken. In the present case, the importer who is registered as first stage dealer issued the invoice, therefore, the importer is undoubtedly covered in the terms 'first stage dealer'. Therefore, the invoices issued by first stage dealer in respect of indigenous goods or imported goods, the invoice issued by such first stage dealer is valid document for availing the CENVAT Credit. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Uravi T & Wedge Lamps Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, ThaneCentral Excise2018 (5) TMI 1118 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 2-5-2018Appeal No. E\/87806\/17 – ORDER NO. A\/86337 \/ 2018Central ExciseHon'ble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri Stebin Mathew, Advocate for Appellant Shri S.J. Sahu, AC (AR) for … Continue reading “M\/s Uravi T & Wedge Lamps Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Thane”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11840","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11840","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11840"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11840\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11840"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11840"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11840"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. Shri S.J. Sahoo, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order.
\n4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. I find that at the relevant period from 1.3.2015 to 31.1.2016, the definition of first stage dealer is as under: –
\n “(ij) “firs<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4.1 As regards the notification No. 30\/2016-CE (NT) heavily relied upon by the learned AR and it was also relied upon by the appellate authority, I am also of the view that this is not an amendment notification, however, the same is a clarification issued for the reason that this notification was not given effect to amendment under the Rul<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n