2017 (3) TMI 783

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., it was noticed that the invoices raised by the manufacturer mentioned the appellant as a consignee and the buyers of the goods were someone else. According to the Revenue, the appellant purchased the goods from the non-regd. dealers (appearing as buyers in the invoice) and not from any manufacturer or regd. dealers. A Show Cause Notice dated 22.10.2013 was issued proposing to deny the Cenvat Credit along with interest and to impose penalty. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 9,06,438/- along with interest and imposed penalty. By the impugned order, the Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. Hence, the present appeal. 2. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... second stage dealer, as the case may be, has maintained records indicating the fact that the input or capital goods was supplied from the stock on which duty was paid by the producer of such input or capital goods and only an amount of such duty on pro rata basis has been indicated in the invoice issued by him. (5) The manufacturer of final products or the provider of output service shall maintain proper records for the receipt, disposal, consumption and inventory of the input and capital goods in which the relevant information regarding the value, duty paid, CENVAT credit taken and utilized, the person from whom the input or capital goods have been procured is recorded and the burden of proof regarding the admissibility of the CE....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nputs were directly received by the appellant from the dealer who was registered with the Central Excise authorities. 5. I find that the Tribunal on an identical issue in the case of Jupiter Alloy & Steel (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Kolkata-IV, vide Order No.FO/75874/2016 dated 23.08.2016 allowed the credit. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:- "4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in this proceeding is whether the appellant will be eligible to take cenvat credit on documents of the manufacturer when consignee (appellant) is directly receiving the inputs along with the documents but there is an intermediate buyer. First Appellate Authority in paragraph-6 of OIA dated 26.12.2013....