Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2013-14/2026

Importer’s invoice valid document for availing credit.

Case:-JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF C.EX. & SERVICE TAX, RAIPUR

Citation:-2013(298) E.L.T. 447 (Tri.-Del.)

Brief Facts:-This appeal is filed by M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., against the Order-in-Appeal No. 36/RPR-I/2012, dated. 27 February, 2012 passed by Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs (Appeals-I).

The brief facts of the case are that the appellants had availed the CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 9,62,092/- on the goods imported by M/s. ABB Ltd., Bangalore vide bills of entry No. 297005, dated 17-11-2006 and 305232, dated 28-11-2006. These goods were supplied to the appellants by ABB Ltd. on the strength of invoice No. 649020250 and 649020251, both dated 29 November, 2006. The Department has denied the CENVAT credit to the appellants on the ground that the bills of entry are in the names of ABB Ltd. and original of which are not available. Accordingly, the show cause notice was issued to the appellants, which was adjudicated against them by the original authority. Appellants chal­lenged the same before the C.C.E. (Appeals), who also rejected their appeal. Ap­pellants filed this appeal against the impugned order.
 
Appellant Contentions:- The counsel for the appellant submits that they are rightly eligible for credit availment on the strength of importer’s invoice as per Rule 9 and the same should be allowed to them.

Respondent Contentions:-The respondent reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.

Reasoning of Judgment:-Heard both the sides. It is found that the CENVAT credit is denied to the appellants on the ground that the bills of entry are not available in original and are also in the name ABB Ltd. in the absence of which, the appellants are not entitled for CENVAT credit. It is found that under Rule 9, the documents on the basis of which the credit can be allowed are specified. Rule 9(1)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules reads as under :-

"Rule 9.Documents and accounts. - (1) The CENVAT credit shall be taken by the manufacturer or the provider of output service or input service distributor, as the case may be, on the basis of any of the following docu­ments, namely :-
(a)        an invoice issued by -
      i.        A manufacturer for clearance of –
                     I.        Inputs or capital goods from his factory or depot or from the premises of the consignment agent of the said manu­facturer or from any other premises from where the goods are sold by or on behalf of the said manufacturer;
                    II.        Inputs or capital goods as such;
     ii.        an importer;
    iii.        an importer from his depot or from the premises of the con­signment agent of the said imports if the said depot or the premises, as the case may be, is registered in terms of the pro­visions of Central Excise Rules, 2002;
    iv.        a first stage dealer or a second stage dealer, as the case may be, in terms of the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002; or"

It is found from Rule 9(1)(a)(ii) that any invoice issued by importer is admissible documents for CENVAT credit. In the present case, the appellants are having importer's invoices showing the amount of duty on which they are seeking CENVAT credit. Therefore, there is no reason to deny the CENVAT credit to the appellants on the basis of the importer invoices. As regards second ground of denying credit on ground of delay in taking credit, there is no time-frame men­tioned in the CENVAT Credit Rules in availing the CENVAT credit. Therefore, there is no reason to reject the CENVAT credit on the ground of time also. Ac­cordingly, the Order-in-Appeal is not sustainable and the appeal is allowed.

Decision:-Appeal allowed.

Comment:-The analogy that is drawn from this case is that invoice issued by the importer is a valid document for the purpose of availing cenvat credit and the credit cannot be denied on the ground that original copy of bill of entry was not present. Moreover, it was also confirmed in this case that no time limit is prescribed in the Cenvat Credit Rules for availing the cenvat credit and it can be availed any time after receipt of goods. 

Comments

Post a Comment



Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com