2016 (9) TMI 184

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t is the case of the Revenue in the show cause notice that during the material period, supplementary invoices/57E certificates were never considered as valid duty paying documents, hence cenvat credit availed has to be reversed by the appellant. The show cause notice was issued for the same seeking to confirm the demands raised along with interest and also for imposition of penalties. 3. The appellant submitted in defence that non-mentioning of supplementary invoices and 57E certificates as eligible documents to avail cenvat credit must have been an omission/error which is very evident from the provisions of Notification No.51/2000-CE(NT) dated 29.8.2000, which has very clearly stated that supplementary invoice has to be considered as a do....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....edit can be availed only on the documents which are prescribed. For the relevant period in question, the documents supplementary invoices/57E certificates were not prescribed documents, hence cenvat credit cannot be availed. He would submit that eligibility to avail cenvat credit on supplementary invoice came from 29.8.2000 on the issuance of Notification 51/2000, hence the lower authorities were correct in holding that the appellant had improperly availed the cenvat credit. 6. On consideration of the submissions made by both sides and perusal of records, we find that the issue involved is regarding denial of cenvat credit to the appellant on the supplementary invoices/57E certificates during the period 1.4.2000 to 29.8.2000. It is undispu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ocument was included as an eligible document only by Notification No. 51/2000-C.E. (N.T.), dated 29-8-2000 and prior to this date, only the invoice issued under Rule 52A was a document for availment of Modvat credit. 2. Appearing on behalf of the appellants, ld. Counsel Shri N. Venkatraman submits that the Notification No. 51/2000-N.T., dated 29-8-2000 was a clarificatory in nature and was having retrospective effect. This is the view expressed by the Larger Bench in the case of Tata Engineering Locomotive v. CCE reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 157. Ld. Counsel submits that in this citation Larger Bench has interpreted an identical situation arising under Rule 57E of the Modvat Rules. He submits that the Madras High Court judgment rendered i....