75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

March 2015

15-TIOL-318-CESTAT-MUM] CCE vs. M/s Jay Iron & Steel Industries Ltd.

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Mandar telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
As long as duty payment is accepted on output, benefit of credit cannot be denied on flimsy grounds like suspicion or presumption.

Facts:
The Respondent, a manufacturer availed CENVAT Credit on various inputs. CENVAT Credit was denied on the ground that the dealers did not supply any scrap but only issued invoices.

Held:
The Tribunal noted that the Respondent made full payment of duty indicated in the invoice by cheque, the transaction and the payments are properly recorded in the books of Account and therefore the onus under Rules 9(2), 9(3), 9(4) and 9(7) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which requires to ensure that appropriate duty of excise on inputs paid was discharged. Further the suppliers were registered with the department and thus their identity and address were never in doubt and thus the benefit of CENVAT credit being a substantial benefit granted by law cannot be denied on flimsy grounds.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

[2015-TIOL-360-CESTAT-MUM] M/s. ABL Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs. CCE

A. P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 71 dated February 3, 2015