2014 (2) TMI 246

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with predeposit, we take up the appeal. 2. This appeal is principally directed against denial of CENVAT credit to the aforesaid extent for the period from May to November 2009. During the said period, the appellant took CENVAT credit on the basis of Bills of Entry and invoices both of which stood in the name of the so-called principal manufacturers, namely. Dr. Reddys Laboratories Ltd., Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. The said companies had imported inputs for medicaments on payment of customs duties including CVD and had also procured similar inputs from indigenous sources on payment of excise duty. Both the streams of inputs were supplied to the appellant to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion, he has relied on case law such as Marmagao Steel Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2005(192)E.L.T. 82 (Bom)], Union of India Vs. Marmagoa Steel Ltd. [2008(229)ELT481(SC)], Vimal Enterprises Vs Union of India [2006(195)E.L.T. 267(Guj)] etc. The learned consultant further points out that the appellant, indeed, wanted to produce certain documents before the learned Commissioner and that only limited time was given for the purpose. In this connection, a copy of the record of hearing dated 23.5.2011 is placed on record by the consultant, which indicates that the Cost Accountant (who is also representing the appellant before us today) undertook to produce such documents by 25.5.2001. The learned Commissioner passed the impugned order on 30.5.2011 aft....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t today by the learned consultant is that the appellant was entitled to take CENVAT credit on the strength of the endorsed Bills of Entry. He has also stated that M/s Glaxosmithkline supplied inputs under two excise invoices only and that these invoices indicated the appellant's address. It appears from the impugned order that such factual details were not furnished by the party to the adjudicating authority and hence could not be considered by the latter. It further appears that the case law cited before us by the consultant for the appellant was not relied on before the learned Commissioner. Today both sides have referred to Rule-9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and we have found that one of the documents prescribed thereunder for the pu....