TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 980
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../11-12 dated 4/1/2012 The demand of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 2,65,805/- reduced penalty from Rs. 2,65,805/- to Rs. 1 lakh and upheld the demand of interest 2 E/899/12-MUM No. BC/369/M-III/2012 dated 14/3/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-III F.No. V.Adj (SCN)15-34/W-I/M-III/2010 dated 29/09/2010 The demand of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 14,44,971/- ordered recovery of interest, and imposed penalty of equal amount of duty. F.No. V.Adj /W-I/SCN/15-78/Aplab/2011-12/1457 dated 6/5/2011 The demand of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 2,14,179 /- ordered recovery of interest, and imposed penalty of equal amount of duty. The facts of the case is that appellant being manufacturer availed Cenvat credit on the invoices wher....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....only on the basis of invoice of first stage and second stage dealer. In the present case M/s. Somaiya Steel Corporation and M/s. Hansraj Karsanraj & Co., have not issued invoices in the capacity of first stage or second stage dealer, on this count credit was denied. She submits that it is general trade practice that sale invoices contains two column which is as per prescribed format that one column for name and address for the buyers and second is for name and address of consignee. In such case appellant being consignee of the goods, they are entitled to credit irrespective of the fact that as per that invoices buyer is same intermediately dealer or distributors. It is her submission that even though the credit was taken on the invoices whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s input procurement, purchase of input is not criterion of availment of credit. (a) Exide Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE [2008(226) ELT 249 (Tri- Kolkata] (b) CCE Vs. Vishnu Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. [2009(245) ELT 397(Tri- Mum.)] (c) Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE. [Cestat order No. S-248/A-329/KOL/2009 dated 11/6/2009] 3. On the other hand, Shri. Ashutosh Nath, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused record. 5. Before arriving at my conclusion, I feel it is necessary to go through the provisions which provides documents which are required for allowing availment of Cenvat Credit. In this regard I ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the additional amount of duty became recoverable from the manufacturer or importer of inputs or capital goods on account of any non-levy or short-levy by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provisions of the Excise Act, or of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) or the rules made there under with intent to evade payment of duty. Explanation.- For removal of doubts, it is clarified that supplementary invoice shall also include challan or any other similar document evidencing payment of additional amount of additional duty leviable under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act; or (c) a bill of entry; or (d) a certificate issued by an appraiser of customs in respect of goods imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he present case, invoices, on which credit was disputed was issued by manufacturer and the appellant's name is clearly appearing as consignee therefore the invoices in question squarely covered by clause (a) of sub rule 1 of Rule 9. I do not agree with the Revenue's contention that in case of purchase of input from dealer invoices should be issued by first stage dealer or second stage dealer. In my view only in case where the input is purchased directly from a dealer on his invoices and the manufacturer invoices is not indicated the name of the recipient as consignee the first stage dealer or second stage dealer as case may be is registered with Central Excise should issue invoices as provided under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Ho....