TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1242
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w-cause notice No. V/PI/RGD/Gr-IV/12-33/2011 Part-I dated 03.04.2012 was issued to the appellant, proposing denial of CENVAT credit for an amount of Rs. 7,62,934/- on 19 invoices of "Furnace Oil" issued by three different suppliers, on the ground that the invoices are not permitted to be endorsed and CENVAT credit is not admissible on such endorsed invoices. In the adjudication, CENVAT credit was denied and also imposed penalty & interest. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the appeal of the appellant, therefore the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. Shri Prashant Patankar, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant took over the factory premises of M/s Vipras Corporation Ltd. and started the production activity in the said premises. As regard the taking over of forging unit by the appellant from M/s Vipras Corporation Ltd, the appellant had informed to the adjudicating Authority vide letter dated 10.08.2006 wherein the copy of agreement between both the unit was submitted. He submits that since M/s Vipras Corporation Ltd. was registered as a buyer with the supplier for supply of "Furnace ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the CENVAT credit on the endorsed invoices is not admissible. It is his submission that CENVAT credit can be taken only by the person in whose name the invoices were issued. He placed reliance on the following judgements:- (i) Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore Vs. Shubham Thionyl - 2005 (192) ELT 163 (Tri.-Del.) (ii) P.C.C. Pole Factory Vs. Commissioner of Commissioner, Raipur - 2004 (176) ELT 377 (Tri.- Del.) 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. From the facts, I find that in the present case the input i.e. Furnace Oil' was supplied to the unit of M/s Vipras Corporation Ltd. which was taken over by the appellant and they were carrying out manufacturing activity when received the input along with invoices which were raised in favour of M/s Vipras Corporation Ltd. The input supplied was received by the appellant and used in their manufacture. From the Books of Account of the appellant, it is found that all the 19 invoices in question were against purchase of 'Furnace Oil' in appellant's Books of Account. It is also not in dispute that the amount of all 19 invoices paid only by the appellant to the supplier. From these facts, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2004 (178) E.L.T. 1029 (Tri.-Del.)." (ii) CCE, Coimbatore Vs. Coimbatore Murugan Mills - 2003 (160) ELT 825 (Tri.-Chennai) "4. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. In normal circumstances, when there is a sale by one assessee to another independent assessee, the endorsed modvatable invoices have been held as not proper documents for the purpose of Modvat credit by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Balmer and Lawrie Ltd. [2000 (116) E.L.T. 364 (Tri.)]. However, in the instant case, the situation is different inasmuch as it is a transfer of the consignments of the inputs by two sister concerns of the same parent unit namely National Textile Corporation Ltd. There is no sale between the two units. Hence, the ratio of the Larger Bench decision will not be applicable. Revenue has not doubted nor disputed that the consignments of the inputs in question was duty paid and was duly received in the Respondent's factory and utilised in the manufacture of their final product which was cleared on payment of duty. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is of the said documents especially when there is no doubt or dispute about the receipt of the inputs by the appellants in their factory, their utilisation in the manufacture of the final product and clearance of the final product on payment of duty. 8. We also take note of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Kamakhya Steels Ltd. v. CCE - 2000 (121) E.L.T. 247 wherein the Tribunal, after taking note of the Board's circular, has observed that the minor procedural lapses, if any, should not be made the basis for denial of the benefit of the Modvat credit, if the assessee's jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner is otherwise satisfied about the receipt of the inputs. In the absence of any doubt to the above fact, we are of the view that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside." (v) (Gautam Weaving Mills Vs. CCE, Belapur - 2008 (230) ELT 147 (Tri.- Mumbai) "2. I have heard both sides and find force in the submission of the appellants that credit taken on strength of endorsed invoice is admissible to them in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Simplex Mills Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-IV - 2007 (81) RLT 331 (Bom) followin....