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>Tribunal upholds Cenvat credit based on rectified invoices despite initial lack of endorsement</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUS., SURAT-I Versus PRATIK PROCESSORS</h3> COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUS., SURAT-I Versus PRATIK PROCESSORS - 2009 (246) E.L.T. 620 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues involved: Applicability of Cenvat credit rules u/s Rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 (now Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004) based on buyers' endorsement on invoices during excise audit.Summary:The appellate tribunal considered a case where the appellants failed to produce duty paying documents for 108 credit entries during excise audit, amounting to Rs. 1,73,949. Lower authorities allowed credit of Rs. 1,42,527 on 89 invoices with proper endorsement by buyers, while disallowing credit for invoices lacking such endorsement.The Commissioner (Appeals) found that 19 invoices, although lacking buyers' endorsement initially, were later endorsed and verified to be in compliance with Rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 (now Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004). The department did not dispute the receipt or use of goods mentioned in these invoices. Consequently, credit amounting to Rs. 28,966 was deemed admissible on these 19 invoices.The Revenue appealed, arguing that the appellants were not eligible for Cenvat credit based on buyers' endorsement added later on Xerox copies of input invoices. They contended that the endorsement was not present during the credit claim or adjudication process.The tribunal noted that the absence of buyers' endorsement was a rectifiable omission, and there was no dispute regarding the receipt or use of goods. The Revenue's sole contention was the improper documentation for credit. Upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, the tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the admissibility of credit based on rectified endorsements.The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, emphasizing that rectifiable omissions in documentation did not invalidate the eligibility for Cenvat credit when goods receipt and usage were established.*(Pronounced in the Court)*
TaxTMI 