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 could be denied and penalty sustained where the inputs were received under excise invoices, entered in statutory records, reflected in returns, and paid for by banking channels, despite the Revenue's allegation that the supplier lacked infrastructure.
Analysis: The inputs were reflected in RG-23A Part-I, Form-IV and ER-1 returns and were accepted in the assessee's records during departmental scrutiny. The invoices contained the supplier's particulars and the assessee had accounted for receipt of goods, paid through account payee cheques and RTGS, and produced transportation and purchase records. Rule 9(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 requires the recipient to identify the supplier through the prescribed documents, which stood satisfied. The Revenue relied mainly on statements from the supplier's side, but produced no material to show that the goods were not received or that the banking payments were returned. In the absence of evidence disproving receipt and use of inputs, credit could not be denied merely on suspicion about the supplier's infrastructure.
Conclusion: The denial of Cenvat credit and the associated penalty were unsustainable, and relief was due to the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit cannot be denied where duty-paid inputs are received under valid invoices and reflected in statutory records, unless the Revenue produces cogent evidence that the goods were not actually received or that the transaction was fictitious.