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 overturns disallowance of Cenvat Credit, highlighting fairness and procedural compliance</h1> <h3>M/s. Nichrome India Ltd Versus C.C.T, Pune - II</h3> M/s. Nichrome India Ltd Versus C.C.T, Pune - II - TMI Issues:- Disallowance of Cenvat Credit based on a supplementary invoice- Applicability of Rule 9(1)(bb) regarding fraud and suppression- Invocation of extended period for demand- Interpretation of CBEC circulars and case laws- Limitation for issuing show cause noticeAnalysis:1. Disallowance of Cenvat Credit based on a supplementary invoice:The case involved disallowance of Cenvat Credit amounting to a specific sum based on a supplementary invoice issued by M/s. Datta Enterprises. The Appellants contested this disallowance, arguing that the credit availed was legitimate and that they had no mens rea or control over the supplier. The Appellants also invoked the doctrine of fairness as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Indian Tobacco Association case. The Tribunal analyzed the facts and provisions of Rule 3 of CCR, 2004 to determine the admissibility of the credit.2. Applicability of Rule 9(1)(bb) regarding fraud and suppression:The Tribunal deliberated on the applicability of Rule 9(1)(bb) which pertains to supplementary invoices issued by service providers in cases of fraud, collusion, or wilful misstatement. The Appellants argued that the fraud or non-payment was on the part of the service provider, not them, and thus, they should not be penalized for availing the credit. The Tribunal examined the language of the rule and concluded that the provisions clearly address fraud at the service provider's end, making them applicable in the present case.3. Invocation of extended period for demand:Regarding the invocation of the extended period for demand, the Appellants contended that since they were regularly submitting returns and undergoing audits without any allegations of suppression, the extended period should not be invoked. The Tribunal reviewed the timeline of events, including the issuance of the supplementary invoice, audits, and show cause notices, to determine the validity of invoking the extended period for demanding the disallowed credit.4. Interpretation of CBEC circulars and case laws:Both the Appellants and the department referenced CBEC circulars and various case laws to support their arguments. The Appellants relied on circulars clarifying the admissibility of credit under specific circumstances, while also citing relevant case laws to bolster their position. The department, on the other hand, contested the applicability of the circulars cited by the Appellants and emphasized the insertion of Rule 9(1)(bb) as a basis for disallowance.5. Limitation for issuing show cause notice:The Tribunal analyzed the limitation period for issuing the show cause notice in light of the events surrounding the case, including the knowledge of fraud by M/s. Datta Enterprises, the regular submission of returns by the Appellants, and the timing of audits and show cause notices. It was concluded that the show cause notice and the subsequent order were beyond the limitation period, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order with consequential relief.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the disallowance of Cenvat Credit based on the supplementary invoice, emphasizing the lack of fraud or suppression on the part of the Appellants and the inapplicability of the extended period for demand due to the absence of suppression allegations. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting rules and provisions accurately, considering the specific circumstances of each case, and adhering to the principles of fairness and procedural limitations.
TaxTMI 