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 grants CENVAT credit appeal, emphasizing compliance and evidence of goods received</h1> <h3>UNI DERITEND LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-III</h3> UNI DERITEND LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-III - 2011 (272) E.L.T. 312 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Appeal against denial of CENVAT credit on input due to alleged diversion of goods from supplier to another unit availing SSI exemption.Analysis:The appellant contested the denial of CENVAT credit, asserting they received goods physically against duty paid invoices and complied with Central Excise law. They argued that any duty liability should rest with the supplier. The appellant cited a previous favorable tribunal decision and a relevant Board circular to support their case. They emphasized testing the goods and finding them as described in the invoice. The appellant argued they should not be held liable to reverse the credit. The JDR, however, contended that goods diverted to another unit were not received by the appellant, supported by a statement confirming non-receipt. The JDR argued the appellant had knowledge that received goods did not match the invoice description. The lower authority denied credit based on this discrepancy.The tribunal considered both sides' arguments and reviewed the records. It noted the allegation that the appellant did not receive goods subject to duty. However, it found no evidence that the appellant did not receive any goods against the invoice. The tribunal emphasized the duty of the appellant to ensure goods received match the invoice description and have suffered duty. It highlighted the appellant's testing of goods and finding them in order. The tribunal cited a similar past case where the appellant had consumed inputs, paid duty, and received credit. Relying on this precedent and a relevant court decision, the tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to avail CENVAT credit on the inputs procured against duty paid invoices. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments, legal considerations, and the tribunal's reasoning leading to the decision in favor of the appellant regarding the CENVAT credit denial issue.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
