Whether Cenvat credit can be denied due to the incorrect address?

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1268

CASE:- COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., SALEM Versus CHEMPLAST SANMAR LTD.

CITATION:- 2007 (208) E.L.T. 208 (Tri. - Chennai)

BRIEF FACTS:-M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Limited have three manufacturing plants, I, II and III. During the period January to May, 1995, plant I (respondent) took Modvat credit on inputs on the basis of invoices which were addressed to plants II and III and not to plant I. On the invoices issued by one of the input suppliers, the consignee’s address was corrected from plant II to plant I. The department did not accept any of the invoices as valid document for availment of input duty credit by plant I of the respondent-company. Accordingly, show-cause notices were issued to the respondents. The original authority disallowed the entire credit to the respondents and also imposed on them a penalty of Rs.2,500/- The first appellate authority set aside the order passed by the lower authority, after holding that the input credit was not deniable to one manufacturing unit of a company on the ground that the relevant invoice had shown another unit of the company as the consignee, and held that where there was no dispute of receipt of the input in the credit-taking unit and its utilization in the manufacture of final product in that unit, Cenvat credit cannot be denied.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:-The Revenue (appellant) says that the Tribunal’s decision in L & T Limited’s case has not been accepted by the department and that a reference application has been filed with the Tribunal and during pendency of such reference application, there is no reason to discount precedent-value of the Tribunal’s decision in L & T Ltd. case.

REASONING OF JUDGEMENT:- Commissioner (Appeals) followed the Tribunal’s decision in the case of L & T Ltd v. CCE [1994 (72) E.L.T.948], wherein it had been held that Modvat credit was not to be denied to L & T Ltd., Kansbahal merely by reason of the fact that the duty-paying document showed the consignee’s name shown as “L & T Ltd., Calcutta”. In that case also there was no dispute of the fact that the input had been received and used in the manufacture of final product in the factory of M/s. L & T Ltd., Kansbahal. We find that the Tribunal’s decision in the case of L & T Ltd. (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.

DECISION: -The impugned order gets affirmed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

Comments

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1268

Post a Comment

Query