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 rejects appeal for CENVAT Credit due to lack of documentation. Rule 13 limits penalties for dealers.</h1> <h3>M/s SMV Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Chhotelal Narayandas Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur</h3> M/s SMV Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Chhotelal Narayandas Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur - 2017 (345) E.L.T. 573 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues involved:- Eligibility of M/s SMV Beverages Pvt. Ltd. for CENVAT Credit of additional Excise duty- Liability of individual appellant for penalty under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002Analysis:1. Eligibility for CENVAT Credit:The issue in consideration was whether M/s SMV Beverages Pvt. Ltd. was entitled to avail CENVAT Credit of additional Excise duty paid by the Sugar factory. The Tribunal reviewed the history of the case, noting that it was the second round of litigation. The main question was whether the Sugar factory had paid Central Excise duty and additional excise duty under the Additional Duty of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. The main appellant availed CENVAT Credit on supplementary invoices issued by the registered dealer of the Sugar factory. However, the Tribunal found that these supplementary invoices did not clearly indicate the payment of excise or additional duty by the manufacturer, making them ineligible documents for availing CENVAT Credit. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the main appellant.2. Penalty Imposed on Registered Dealer:The Tribunal also examined the penalty imposed on the registered dealer, the individual appellant. The penalty was imposed under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. However, the Tribunal determined that Rule 13 does not provide for the imposition of penalties on registered dealers for issuing supplementary invoices to purchasers of goods. Therefore, the penalty imposed on the registered dealer was set aside. In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals by rejecting the main appellant's appeal and setting aside the penalty imposed on the registered dealer.This judgment highlights the strict interpretation and application of CENVAT Credit Rules, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation and compliance with statutory provisions to claim credits. The decision underscores the significance of clear and unambiguous documentation to support CENVAT Credit claims and the limitations on penalties under the Cenvat Credit Rules.
TaxTMI 