CENVAT - Lower authorities have not understood provisions of CENVAT Rules in true spirit and, therefore, have denied credit - B/E in name of HO endorsed in name of appellant is a valid document for taking credit in terms of rule 9: CESTAT
By TIOL News Service
MUMBAI, SEPT 17, 2014: THE appellant imported certain inputs/capital goods and Bills of Entry were in the name of their Head Office in all the six cases but in one case the address of the appellant itself was mentioned in the Bill of Entry. All the Bills of Entry were endorsed in the name of the appellant by their Head Office and the lorry receipt shows that the goods were delivered in the premises of the appellant only but the lower authorities denied CENVAT Credit on inputs/capital goods on the premise that the Bills of Entry were in the name of the Head Office but are not in the name of the appellant.
Aggrieved, the appellant is before the CESTAT.
The Bench observed -
++ It is not in dispute that lorry receipts and the Bills of Entry are having endorsements in the name of the appellant. Therefore, as per Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 the appellant is entitled to take CENVAT Credit on inputs/capital goods.
++ The lower authorities have not understood the said provisions in true spirit, therefore, they passed the impugned order.
Terming the order as “totally wrong” and contrary to the provisions of law, the same was set aside and it was by held that the appellant is entitled to take CENVAT Credit on the inputs/capital goods in question.
The appeal was allowed.
(See 2014-TIOL-1773-CESTAT-MUM)
|