Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether CENVAT credit of differential duty paid on supplementary invoices was admissible when the supplier's earlier demand was held not to involve suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty.
Analysis: The credit was taken on supplementary invoices issued for differential duty paid by the job worker on exhaust systems manufactured using free-supplied inputs. The governing provision excluded supplementary invoices only where the additional duty became recoverable because of non-levy or short-levy by reason of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or similar contravention with intent to evade duty. In the connected dispute concerning the job worker, the Tribunal had already found that there was no suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty. Once that finding stood, the exception to Rule 7(1)(b) could not be invoked to deny credit to the recipient.
Conclusion: The denial of CENVAT credit was unsustainable and the credit was admissible to the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: A supplementary invoice is not hit by the exclusion in Rule 7(1)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001 unless the additional duty became recoverable because of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or equivalent contravention with intent to evade duty.