2023 (8) TMI 245

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....L), during the period April 2000 to July 2000. The Commissioner, Central excise, Jamshedpur vide his Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2004 disallowed credit of Rs.2.57 Crore only. 2. Being aggrieved by the above order of the Commissioner, TML filed an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order in so far as it related to denial of credit amounting to Rs.2,14,05,637/- out of Rs.2.57 crores. The Tribunal vide its order No.A-346-349/KOL/2010 dated 20.04.2010 allowed the appeal in so far as it had denied the credit of Rs.61,22,262/- and Rs.1,11,35,767/- and remanded the case for a fresh decision in so far the disallowance of credit of Rs.41,47,609/- in the order dated 31.03.04, with the observation as under:- "8. In respect of denial of cr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... interest and penalty. 4. The Appellant furnished the break-up of the Cenvat credit disallowed in the impugned order, which is furnished below: (i) DFT copy of invoices recd. from Telco-Pimpri, which was submitted earlier by their letter dated 16.11.2000 - Rs.15,31,074/ (ii) Credit availed without invoice - Rs.19,91,913/- (iii)Credit availed on other than DFT copy of invoice - rs.5,33,208/ (iv) Modvat availed on the basis of Certificate 'A' - Rs.89,641/- (v) Misc. Discrepancies - Rs.1775/- 5. The eligibility of the credit in respect of the above mentioned categories are discussed below, based on the submissions made by the Appellant, findings in the impugned order and the evidences available on record. (i) Cenvat credit of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s vide this letter. Thus, denial of credit on an issue which has never been agitated is legally not tenable. 5.2 We observe that the impugned order is beyond the remand direction as well as the scope of the previous Order-in-Original, which merely denied the credit for non-submission of letter, which has been provided by the Appellant before Denovo adjudication. Regarding eligibility of this credit, we observe that the Duplicate copy of invoice produced by the Appellant clearly indicate the receipt of the goods into the factory. Hence, we hold that the appellant has rightly availed the credit. Subsequently, they have cleared the inputs to HV Axles Ltd as such on reversal of the same credit availed at the time of its receipt. Thus, we obser....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d for such a requirement. Rather, even preamendment, Rule 57G(6) always allowed the assessees to avail credit on the basis of original copy of the invoice if there is no dispute about the receipt of goods in the factory. Inasmuch as there is no dispute on the duty paid character and receipt of goods in the factory, we hold that the credit cannot be denied on this count. The Appellant relied on the following decisions, in support of their contention that credit cannot be denied on procedural grounds: Adhunik Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, Bolpur, 2010 (262) ELT 551 (Tri-Kol.) The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. v. CCE & ST, Trichy, 2019- TIOL-1845-CESTAT-MAD Shivam Electrical Industries v. UOI, 2018 (359) E.L.T. 46 (J & K) Cords Cable Industries ....