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 rules in favor of appellant in credit denial case on imported goods due to procedural irregularities.</h1> <h3>Kome Steel Industries Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur</h3> Kome Steel Industries Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur - 2015 (322) E.L.T. 759 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:- Denial of credit on imported goods due to procedural irregularities.Analysis:The case involved the appellant, who received wire rods from P.K. Trading Co. for reducing thickness. The appellant faced a challenge as the bill of entry was not in their name, lacked an invoice from the supplier, and had no entry in the RG-23 Part I register, leading to a proposed denial of credit on the goods. The appellant contended that they had informed the Appraising Officer about the transfer of goods to their unit at the time of import, supported by documentation such as letters, duty payment details, and weighment slip from a weight bridge. The appellant also highlighted the payment of additional duty on the final product and entries in the RG23 Part II register, indicating the utilization of inputs in the manufacturing process.On the other hand, the Additional Commissioner argued against the appellant, pointing out the absence of an endorsement on the bill of entry, the necessity of an invoice from the supplier in the appellant's name, and the lack of entry in the RG-23 Part I register. The Additional Commissioner contended that these factors indicated that the goods were not received in the appellant's factory, warranting a rejection of the appeal.Upon reviewing the submissions and documents, the judge noted the procedural irregularities but established through evidence that the goods were indeed received by the appellant, used in the manufacturing process, and the finished products were cleared after duty payment. Despite the identified irregularities, the judge concluded that there was no justification to deny the cenvat credit. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, ruling in favor of the appellant.
TaxTMI 