TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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 Upheld Denial of Cenvat Credit to Steel Manufacturer Based on Octroi Records</h1> <h3>M/s Ranjeev Alloys Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and another</h3> The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to deny Cenvat Credit to the appellant, a Steel Ingots manufacturer, based on octroi records indicating ... Cenvat Credit- Assessee took cenvat credit on the inputs. The revenue rejected the credit on the basis of octroi receipt which contained different consignee's name. Court confirmed the revenue's stand. Issues:Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Substantial questions of law raised regarding the receipt of inputs, denial of credit, time-barred demand of duty, and perversity of the Tribunal's order.Analysis:1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Steel Ingots, availed Cenvat Credit on invoices from a registered dealer. The revenue issued show cause notices proposing to deny the credit based on octroi records showing a different consignee at Khanna. Replies were submitted by the appellant, the registered dealer, and the actual recipient of goods. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty, which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) citing insufficient evidence from octroi records to prove non-receipt of goods. The Tribunal, however, reversed this decision, stating that the goods were received by another party. The Tribunal's conclusion was upheld by the High Court, dismissing the appeal.2. The Tribunal found that the vehicle carrying the goods had entered the Municipal Limits of Khanna as per octroi records, indicating that the goods were not received by the appellant but by another party. The appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for this discrepancy. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that no error or perversity was evident in the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence, thereby dismissing the appeal.3. The High Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose from the appeal, as the Tribunal's decision was based on a reasonable evaluation of the evidence presented. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's order regarding the denial of Cenvat Credit based on the discrepancy in the receipt of goods as per octroi records.
TaxTMI 
