TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1619
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Honda Cars India Ltd. at the time of clearance and supply of the same to the appellant. On the basis of an audit undertaken by the Department, an audit objection was raised whereunder it was alleged that the appellant have availed Cenvat credit wrongly of the additional duty of customs paid by them on the import of various parts of auto parts during the period from April 2010 to January 2015 as M/s Honda Cars India Ltd. while issuing the cenvetable invoices to the appellant did not mention the particulars of import documents against which the supplier has availed Cenvat credit and used the same for payment of duty on the auto parts supplied by them to the appellant. On the basis of this premise, a show cause notice dated 17 April 2015 was issued whereunder it has been asked as to why Cenvat credit of Rs. 4,57,11,221/- should not be recovered from them as per the provision of Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 readwith Section 11A (4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, interest and penal provisions have also been invoked in the show cause notice. The matter got adjudicated vide order-in-original No. ALW/EXCUS/OIO/COM/025/16-17 dated 24 June 2016 whereunder all the charges as alleged....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Suppliers, Tapukara Industrial Area, Khushkhera, Alwar Road, Bhiwadi Distt. Alwar - 301 707 under Rule 15 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. 2004 readwith Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In case the amount determined at Sl. No. (i) above and interest is paid within thirty days of the date of receipt of this order, penalty shall be twenty five percent of the penalty imposed, only if such reduced penalty is also paid within 30 days of receipt of this order". 3. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that as per the directions of this Tribunal, the learned Adjudicating Authority namely Commissioner had forwarded the invoices submitted by the appellant to the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to verify the genuineness and also got the verification of the same done by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of the supplier of the goods namely M/s Honda Cars India Ltd. It has been submitted that the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner has sent a verification report vide a letter dated 3 December 2018 wherein it has categorically been reported that invoices issued by the supplier of the goods namely M/s Honda Cars India Ltd. and on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an invoice must contain all particulars prescribed under the Excise Rules. It is submitted that all particulars, as prescribed under the Central Excise Rules, 2002 are mentioned on the invoices issued by M/s HCIL. Details of particulars mentioned on these invoices are tabulated here below:- Particulars as per Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 Details mentioned on sample Invoice No. 010303257 raised by Honda Cars Serially Numbered Invoice No. 010303257 dated 19/03/2013 Registration No. AAACH - 1765QXM001 Address of concerned Central Excise Division LT Group - 3, NBCC Plaza, Pushp Vihar, Saket, New Delhi Commissionerate : LTU Delhi Name of Consignee Yutaka Auto Parts India Private Limited Description of Goods Catalyst 18165-RE2-E010-Y3 Classification of Goods 8708.99 Time and Date of Removal 19/03/2013 at 12:30 Mode of transport & Vehicle Registration HR 38 N 1008 Rate of duty 12% Quantity & Value of Goods and duty payable thereon. Quantity - 3120 Value - 88,20,240 Duty - 10,58,429 7. It has further been contended that it is wrong on the part of the Commissioner to deny the appellant Cenvat credit on the ground that invoices do not mention the fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me proviso under Section 11 (4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 readwith Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 204, however, it has been mentioned that there is no element of any suppression in the facts of this case as no element of the fraud, collusion, mis-declaration or mis-representation with an intend to evade duty are present in this case. The learned Advocate has placed reliance on various decisions of this Tribunal as well as of the higher court to support his arguments in this regard. Some of the case laws cited by them are as follows :- (i) Accurate Chemicals Industries versus CCE, Noida - 2014 (300) E.L.T. 451 (Tri. - Del.) ; (ii) CCE, Noida versus Accurate Chemical Industries - 2014 (310) E.L.T. 441 (All.) and (iii) Gulab Gundhi Tobacco Co. & Ors. versus CCE, Delhi - I Final order No. 55737-42 of 2017 dated 07/08/2017. 9. We have also heard learned Departmental Representative who has reiterated the findings as given in the order-in-original. 10. Having heard both the sides and on perusal of record of the appeal, we find that the learned Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order-in-original has denied Cenvat credit of Rs. 4.57 crores involving in total 125 invo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....additional duty of customs was availed by the appellant were proper documents or not, in the light of the provisions contained under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 3 (5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner was also asked to get the necessary verification done from the concerned Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner of the CGST Division having jurisdiction over the supplier of the goods namely M/s Honda Cars India Ltd. and to report whether the removal of the goods by M/s Honda Cars India Ltd. covered by these invoices were imported goods and duty passed on by them were in accordance with the Rule 3 (5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 13. It is a matter of record that the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide his letter dated 3 December 2018 reported that the invoices supplied by the supplier of the components/ parts M/s Honda Cars India Ltd. and on the strength of which the appellant have availed Cenvat credit of additional duty of customs during the period April 2010 to January 2015 were genuine invoices. It has further been reported that the goods removed by the supplier to the appellant under cover of 125 invoi....