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 allows Cenvat credit on inputs using supplementary invoices | Legal compliance emphasized</h1> <h3>EBG INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NASIK</h3> EBG INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NASIK - 2009 (240) E.L.T. 317 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:- Entitlement to avail Cenvat credit on inputs using supplementary invoices and 'differential duty certificates' from 1-4-2000 to 28-8-2000.- Validity of denial of Cenvat credits totaling to Rs. 15,47,200/- and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- on procedural grounds.Analysis:Issue 1: Entitlement to Cenvat credit on inputs during the specified periodThe appeal questioned the entitlement of the assessee to avail Cenvat credit on inputs using supplementary invoices and 'differential duty certificates' from 1-4-2000 to 28-8-2000. The department contended that as per the new rules effective from 1-4-2000, neither supplementary invoices nor differential duty certificates were specified as valid documents for Cenvat credit availment. The lower authorities upheld this view, resulting in the denial of Cenvat credits amounting to Rs. 15,47,200/- and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- on the assessee for irregular availment of Cenvat credit.Issue 2: Interpretation of rules and precedentsIn the hearing, the appellant relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CCE, Madras v. Home Ashok Leyland Ltd., emphasizing that Rule 57E was procedural and did not affect the substantive right to claim Modvat credit. Additionally, reference was made to a Tribunal decision accepting TR-6 challan as a valid document for Cenvat credit. After considering submissions, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were entitled to take Cenvat credit on inputs as done during the disputed period. The Tribunal highlighted that the supplementary invoices and differential duty certificates were issued under the same legal provision as the original invoices for duty payment. It was emphasized that the substantive conditions for Cenvat credit were fulfilled by the party, and the benefit should not be denied on procedural grounds, citing the Home Ashok Leyland Ltd. case where non-observance of procedural rules did not justify denial of substantive benefits.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and ruling in favor of the appellants. It was established that the appellants were entitled to avail Cenvat credit on inputs using supplementary invoices and 'differential duty certificates' during the disputed period, based on the fulfillment of substantive requirements despite procedural discrepancies. The decision was influenced by legal interpretations and precedents emphasizing the primacy of substantive compliance over procedural technicalities in matters of Cenvat credit availment.
TaxTMI 