M\/s. Shriram Rayons Versus CCGST & Central Excise, Udaipur
Central Excise
2019 (1) TMI 171 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 1-1-2019
Excise Appeal No. E\/53443\/2018-EX[SM] – Final ORDER NO. 50003\/2019
Central Excise
MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
\nPresent for the Appellant: Mr. S.C. Kamra, Advocates
\nPresent for the Respondent: Mr. P. Juneja, D.R.
\nORDER
\nPER: RACHNA GUPTA
\nPresent is an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) bearing No. 773(CRM)\/CE\/JDR\/2018 dated 17.07.2018 vide which the appellant has been denied to avail the Cenvat Credit based on supplementary invoices issued by the manufacturer.
\n2. The appellant is the manufacturer of Rayon Tyre Yarn, Nylon Tyre Yarn and Rayon Tyre Cord Fabric falling under Chapter 54, 55 & 59 respectively of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1985. The appellant is utilizing coal for generation of electricity in their power plant and was also availing cenvat credit of exc<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n lready been decided by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. CGST, Jabalpur, Final Order No. 52486\/2018 dated 3rd July, 2018 and same has been followed by the Single Bench of this Tribunal in decision of Jaypee Sidhi Cement and Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. CGST, Jabalpur and CGST Udaipur, vide Final Order No.52540-52541 dated 18th July, 2018. It is impressed upon that since the main issue is still pending adjudication in the Hon'ble Apex Court that both the said decisions have considered that Rule 9 (1) (b) of CCR is not applicable to the given set of circumstances, appeal is accordingly prayed to be allowed. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ining about the exclusion part of Rule 9 (1) (b) cannot be held to be the act of suppression or collusion on part of the appellant. Above all, the supplementary invoices have been issued by the Coal Companies, which are the undertakings of the Government of India, there can be no presumption, unless rebutted, of any alleged suppression or collusion. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Shriram Rayons Versus CCGST & Central Excise, UdaipurCentral Excise2019 (1) TMI 171 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 1-1-2019Excise Appeal No. E\/53443\/2018-EX[SM] – Final ORDER NO. 50003\/2019Central ExciseMRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Present for the Appellant: Mr. S.C. Kamra, Advocates Present for the Respondent: Mr. P. Juneja, D.R. ORDER PER: … Continue reading “M\/s. Shriram Rayons Versus CCGST & Central Excise, 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-15923","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15923","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=15923"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15923\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15923"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15923"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15923"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. While rebutting these arguments, ld. DR has impressed upon that it was the duty of the appellant itself to ascertain as to whether supplementary invoices so issued were on account of any such factor, which is covered\/hit by the exclusion clause of Rule 9 (1) (b). Since the appellant has failed to ascertain the same, the alleged suppression and collusion <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n7. The observations from the Tribunal decision in that case are reproduced below:-
\n“7. Having considered the rival contentions of both the sides, we take notice that this Tribunal in connected matter of South Eastern Coalfields 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 verdi<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n