TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1630
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent entities, arising out of two impugned orders, but since the issue involved in these Appeals is common, hence, they are heard together and taken up for common disposal. 2. Heard Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, ld. Advocate for the Appellants and Shri M. Selvakumar, ld. Assistant Commissioner for the Revenue-Commissioner. 3. Brief and undisputed facts that emerge from the impugned orders are that M/s.Glaxo SmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. - Appellant in Appeal No. E/41350/2017 [Glaxo, for short] has entered into an Agreement with M/s.Avlon Cosmetics Private Ltd. (Appellant in Appeal Nos. E/41351/2017 & E/41699/2019) [ACPL, for short] in terms of which, ACPL would receive Horlicks and Boost in various quantities, to be packed into pouch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the Revenue to assume that the said availment of cenvat credit was wrong, to be recovered since ACPL had contravened provisions of Rule 9 (1), Rules 3, 3 (5), 3 (5A) and 4 (4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, apart from Rule 10 ibid. The above resulted in the issuance of a show cause notice dt. 19.01.2016 inter alia proposing to recover wrongly availed cenvat credit including credit availed on Basic Customs Duty (BCD) along with applicable interest and penalties. 5. It appears that the other Appellant-Glaxco was also served the same notice as a co-noticee thereby proposing impose penalty under Rule 15A of CCR. The above SCN for the period April 2012 to May 2014 apparently was issued by invoking the extended period of limitation and the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugh the same, we find that the following issues arise for our consideration : (i) whether the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked by the Commissioner ? (ii) whether there was an violation to Rule 9 of CCR as held in the impugned order and (iii) whether the imposition of penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 15 A is justified ? 8. We find that the crux of the Revenue's case is that the Appellant viz. ACPL had availed cenvat credit based on ineligible documents and in this regard it appears that the Revenue entertained a doubt that the invoice contemplated in rule 9 ibid is issued only to a buyer . Rule 9 reads as under : "RULE 9. Documents and accounts - (1) The CENVAT credit shall be take....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have been procured is recorded and the burden of proof regarding the admissibility of the CENVAT credit shall lie upon the manufacturer or provider of output service taking such credit." 9. We find that the essential conditions as per CCR for availment of cenvat credit on the capital goods by a manufacturer are essentially that such capital goods are classifiable under the specific Chapter Heading of CETA; in terms of Rule 2 (a) of the CCR, such capital goods received are duty paid, such capital goods are received in the factory on or after 10.09.2004, cenvat credit is availed on the basis of document mentioned in Rule 9 ibid. It is an undisputed fact that the Appellant-ACPL has availed the credit on the basis of invoices though not issu....