M\/s. Birla Corporation Ltd. Versus CGST, CC & CE, Udaipur.
Central Excise
2018 (8) TMI 448 – CESTAT DELHI – TMI
CESTAT DELHI – AT
Dated:- 23-7-2018
Excise Appeal No. 51278 \/2018 – FINAL ORDER NO. 52625 \/2018
Central Excise
Hon'ble Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. C L Mahar, Member (Technical)
\nFor the Appellant- Shri Himanshu Bansal, Advocate
\nFor the Respondent- Shri M R Sharma, AR
\nJUDGMENT
\nPer C L Mahar :
\nThe issue involved in this appeal relates to objection by Revenue on taking of cenvat credit on the supplementary invoices, raised by M\/s. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., for supply of coal made to the appellant.
\n2. Coal is one of the important input of the appellant used in the manufacture of cement and cement clinker. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of Cement Clinker and Cement falling under Chapter Heading No.25 of the first schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are availin<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n no.77\/CE\/UDR\/2016-17\/ADC dated 04.01.2017 wherein Cenvat Credit was disallowed and ordered to recover the same along with interest and penalty. The said order of the adjudicating authority was upheld by the commissioner (A) vide order-in-appeal no 107(AG)\/CE\/JDR\/2018 dated 16.02.2018. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ntions of both the sides, we take notice that this Tribunal in connected matter of South Eastern Coalfield Ltd. in Appeal No.52023-52026\/2014-DB dated 3.4.2017 vide Final Order No.52723-52726\/2017 dated 3.4.2017, taking notice of pendency of similar matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. and ors. and also other cases, referred to in the above case, disposed of the appeal of the South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., granting liberty to them to come again after having final verdict from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Moreover, we are satisfied that there is no element of fraud and suppression on the part of the appellant. The issue herein is recurring in nature. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and hold that the appellant is entitled to take cenvat credit on the supplementary invoices in question. Thus, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Birla Corporation Ltd. Versus CGST, CC & CE, Udaipur.Central Excise2018 (8) TMI 448 – CESTAT DELHI – TMICESTAT DELHI – ATDated:- 23-7-2018Excise Appeal No. 51278 \/2018 – FINAL ORDER NO. 52625 \/2018Central ExciseHon'ble Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. C L Mahar, Member (Technical) For the Appellant- Shri Himanshu Bansal, Advocate For the … Continue reading “M\/s. Birla Corporation Ltd. Versus CGST, CC & CE, Udaipur.”<\/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-13146","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13146","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=13146"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13146\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13146"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13146"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13146"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Revenue issued another show cause notice on the ground that under the provisions of Rule 9(1)(b) of CCR 2004, the appellant is not entitled to the cenvat credit taken on the supplementary invoices as it appears that supplier\/manufacturing company\/SECL have short paid duty earlier and did not include the value of the clearances on stowing excise duty”, “paryavaran upkar”, “vikas upkar”, etc. received from buyers in connection with sale of coal in the transaction value at the time of issuing their original invoices to the noticee, but subsequently, they raised supplementary invoices to the noticee charging above mentioned amounts and charging central excise duty on the aforesaid amounts.
\n Such duty is<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n(operative part of the order pronounced in the open Court)
Case laws, Decision<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n