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 upholds Cenvat credit for company despite supplier fraud, penalties reversed</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Kanpur Versus M/s. Juhi Alloys Ltd.</h3> Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Kanpur Versus M/s. Juhi Alloys Ltd. - 2013 (296) E.L.T. 533 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Denial of Cenvat credit and imposition of penalty based on alleged fake invoices.Analysis:The judgment pertains to three appeals filed by the revenue challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) order that set aside the denial of Cenvat credit and penalties imposed on a company and its directors. The dispute arose from the procurement of inputs by the company from a registered dealer, who was later found to be sourcing goods from a non-existent entity, leading to allegations of fake invoices.The Commissioner (Appeals) found the company eligible for Cenvat credit as they had taken due precautions and followed the necessary rules in procuring the raw materials. The company had placed orders through a broker, received the inputs, and used them in manufacturing final products, duly clearing them with duty payment. The appellate authority emphasized that as long as the transaction's bonafide nature is not doubted, credit should not be denied, citing relevant legal provisions and circulars.The judgment highlighted that the company had received proper invoices from the dealer, recorded the inputs, physically received the goods, and made payments through cheques. The maintenance of ledger accounts and other records further substantiated the receipt and utilization of the inputs in the manufacturing process. The court also emphasized that it is impractical for an assessee to verify all records of the first-stage dealer beyond checking their registration status, which was done in this case.The court, in line with the Commissioner (Appeals) findings, rejected all appeals filed by the Revenue, emphasizing that denial of credit based on the first-stage dealer's alleged fraudulent activities was neither proper nor justified. The judgment was pronounced on 01.07.2013 by Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J., and concluded the matter in favor of the company and its directors.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
