TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court affirms Modvat credit validity based on interconnected invoices, emphasizing compliance rules for rightful credit access.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Versus NAVKAR WIRES (P) LTD.</h3> The court upheld the validity of Modvat credit based on invoices issued by the first stage dealer, emphasizing their interconnected nature with the ... Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents Issues:1. Modvat credit denial based on first stage dealer's supplementary invoices.Analysis:The appeal was against the Order-in-Appeal granting Modvat credit to the Respondent based on invoices issued by the first stage dealer. The Respondent, a manufacturer, availed Modvat credit on these invoices, leading to a show cause notice denying them credit on the grounds that the first stage dealer's supplementary invoices were ineligible. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand and imposed a penalty, which was later reversed by the Commissioner (Appeals), allowing the credit. The Revenue appealed this decision.Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized the importance of supplementary invoices in the process. It was noted that the duty paid through these invoices was on inputs initially supplied by the manufacturer and then to the dealer. The Commissioner found these invoices to be valid for Cenvat credit under Rule 7(a)(iv), as they were integral to the main invoice and contained necessary duty payment particulars.Further analysis revealed that the invoices issued by the first stage dealer were covered under Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, specifically mentioning first stage dealers as eligible issuers. These invoices were based on additional duty paid by the manufacturer to the government. The court emphasized that denying credit on these grounds would be unjust, as the duty paid by the manufacturer should rightfully benefit the respondent as well. Ultimately, it was concluded that the order-in-appeal did not warrant interference, and the appeal was dismissed.In summary, the judgment upheld the validity of Modvat credit based on invoices issued by the first stage dealer, emphasizing the interconnected nature of these invoices with the manufacturer's duty payments. The decision highlighted the importance of following the rules and ensuring that legitimate rights to credit are not denied based on technicalities like the term 'supplementary invoices.'
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
