2007 (8) TMI 657

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appeal itself for disposal. 2. The issue involved in this case is regarding the denial of Cenvat credit to the appellants. The Cenvat credit is sought to be denied to the appellant on the ground that the appellant had availed Cenvat Credit on the invoices issued by one M/s J and J Precision Industries have cleared the final products on payment of duty, by availing irregular and illegible Cenvat Credit on the inputs received by them. The current appellant is one of the purchasers of the final product is cleared by M/s J and J Precision Industries. 3. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. The contention of the appellant is that they had taken reasonable care to verify that the credit availed by them....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ee to reverse/recover the CENVAT Credit availed of in such cases need not be resorted to as long as the bona fide nature of the consignee's transaction is not in dispute. In case the manufacturer-supplier has received payment from the buyer (including the amount shown as duty of excise) i.e., the person taking CENVAT Credit has made payment of the invoice amount, action should also be taken against the manufacturer-supplier under Sections 11D and 11DD of the Central Excise Act, 1944." On a plain reading of the above reproduced Circular of the CBEC, it is very clear that reversal/recovery of the Cenvat credit availed by the consignee need not be resorted as long as the nature of the transaction is bona fide. In the present case bef....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isconstruction on the part of officer or manufacturer or an assessee. As far as the appellants are concerned there was neither any error nor any misconstruction on their part. We also do not find any substance in the submission of the learned SDR that larger period of limitation will be invokable irrespective of the fact that fraud has not been committed by the appellants. It is evident from the impugned Order that the appellants have not committed any fraud, suppression, or wilful mis-statement as the Commissioner has given specific finding that no evidence has been brought on record to suggest active involvement of the appellants. Rule 57-I(1)(ii) clearly provides that where a manufacturer has taken a credit by reason of fraud, wilful mis....