M\/s EMT Megatherm Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST & Excise, Kolkata North
Central Excise
2019 (2) TMI 1022 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 3-1-2019
Ex. Appeal No.78802\/2018 – FO\/A\/75009\/2018
Central Excise
SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
\nMs. Heena Bairagara, C.A. for the Appellant (s)
\nShri S. S. Chattopadhay, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Revenue
\nORDER
\nPer Shri P. K. Choudhary :
\nThis is an appeal filed by the Appellant against Order-in-Appeal No.422\/S.Tax.I\/Kol\/2018 dated 27.06.2018.
\n2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of induction heating equipments classifiable under Chapter 85 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Show-cause notice <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n appeal before the Tribunal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n supra). The relevant Paragraph of the said decision is reproduced thus : = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s EMT Megatherm Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST & Excise, Kolkata NorthCentral Excise2019 (2) TMI 1022 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMICESTAT KOLKATA – ATDated:- 3-1-2019Ex. Appeal No.78802\/2018 – FO\/A\/75009\/2018Central ExciseSHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ms. Heena Bairagara, C.A. for the Appellant (s) Shri S. S. Chattopadhay, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Revenue ORDER Per Shri P. … Continue reading “M\/s EMT Megatherm Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST & Excise, Kolkata North”<\/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-16869","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16869","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=16869"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16869\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16869"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16869"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16869"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that they have purchased the inputs on the strength of the invoices containing all the particulars and they are availing the credit of duty on the basis of valid duty paying documents. She submits that the only ground on which the credit is denied is that the invoices bear handwritten serial numbers and the credit has also been taken on the basis of duplicate\/photo copies of invoices. In this regard, the ld.Counsel submits that the serial number on the invoices can be hand-written and moreover, even the invoices can be hand-written and the printed invoices is not a mandatory requirement under the Statute. The copies of the invoices are filed in the <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n“4. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that both the orders-in-original as well as the impugned order do not identify any statutory provision which mandates the pre-printing of the serial number. Para 3.2 of the Central Excise Manual relied in the impugned order reads as follows :
\n“3.2 The serial number can be given at the time of printing or by using franking machine. But when the invoice book is authenticated in the manner specified in sub-rule (5) of the Rule 11, each foil of the invoice book should contain serial number before being brought into use. Hand written serial number shall not be accepted.”
\n4.1 The said Central Excise Manual and the pa<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n