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 Upholds Decision on Sales Tax Credit Denial Appeal, Emphasizes Statutory Evidence</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH Versus ADHUNIK PACKAGES (P) LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH Versus ADHUNIK PACKAGES (P) LTD. - 2008 (224) E.L.T. 114 (Tri. - Del.) Issues: Denial of credit for failure to produce Sales Tax Form ST-XXVI-AAnalysis:The case revolves around the denial of credit to the respondent due to the failure to produce Sales Tax Form ST-XXVI-A, leading to the presumption that the inputs were not received in their factory. The Revenue appealed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the respondent's appeal.The Revenue argued that Rule 57G(3) of the Central Excise Rules mandates no credit unless inputs are received in the factory under specified documents, including ST forms. The respondent's failure to produce ST forms indicated non-receipt of goods at the factory, as per the Revenue.However, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that Central Excise Law does not require ST-XXVI-A forms for credit availment. The receipt of inputs is established from statutory records, supported by payment evidence through Account Payee Cheques/Drafts. The appellant's submission was backed by invoices, statutory records, and payment evidence, indicating the use of inputs in manufacturing final products.The Revenue contended that ST-3 forms were necessary for Cenvat credit, but the Commissioner (Appeals) found evidence supporting the respondent's receipt of goods at the factory. Since the Revenue did not dispute these evidences, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing that the respondent's evidence of receiving goods was substantial and unchallenged by the Revenue. The lack of requirement for ST-XXVI-A forms under Central Excise Law, coupled with the payment evidence, supported the respondent's entitlement to credit, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.
TaxTMI 