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 disputed cenvat credit for Plant No.9 inputs due to clerical errors.</h1> <h3>M/s. Advik Hi Tech Private Limited (Plant No. 9) Versus Commissioner of Central Goods &, Service Tax, Customs and Central Excise, Dehradun</h3> M/s. Advik Hi Tech Private Limited (Plant No. 9) Versus Commissioner of Central Goods &, Service Tax, Customs and Central Excise, Dehradun - TMI Issues:Disallowance of cenvat credit on inputs for manufacturing unit.Analysis:The appellant, a manufacturer of automobile components, appealed against the disallowance of cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 17,07,064 for the receipt of inputs for the manufacturing unit. The dispute arose due to the use of invoices not directly related to the appellant's Plant No.9, leading to allegations of inadmissible credit. The appellant demonstrated that despite clerical errors in invoices, the goods were received at Plant No.9, utilized for manufacturing, and payments were made from its bank account. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, but the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of credit, prompting the appellant to appeal to the Tribunal.During the hearing, the appellant's counsel showcased sample invoices to prove clerical errors in mentioning the Plant No., but established the correlation with purchase orders, inward receipt documents, and payment records from Plant No.9's bank account. The appellant maintained separate bank accounts and accounting systems for each plant, emphasizing the clerical nature of the errors. The appellant contended that the show cause notice was flawed due to limitation issues and maintained proper transaction records in their books of accounts.After considering the arguments and evidence presented, the Tribunal found the disallowance to be a result of clerical errors. It was established that the inputs were indeed received by Plant No.9, with proper entries and payments made through the correct channels. No evidence of diversion of raw materials or fraudulent activities was found. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the extended limitation period was not applicable, and allowed the cenvat credit in dispute. The impugned order was set aside, granting the appellant consequential benefits as per the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
