By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JAN 01, 2018: THIS is a Revenue appeal.

Nobody appeared for the respondent.

The facts are that the respondent, who are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, availed CENVAT Credit on inputs received from the First Stage / Second Stage dealers, who are duly registered with the service tax department.

However, on the basis of audit objection, Revenue entertained a view that since the First Stage dealer received the goods from the importer who was not registered as importer under Rule 9 of CCR, 2002, the invoices were not eligible documents for the purposes of CENVAT Credit.

The CENVAT credit of Rs.32.15 lakhs was disallowed by the original authority.

However, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the invoices issued by the First Stage / Second Stage dealers clearly mentioned the name, address and Central Excise Registration numbers of original supplier and also of manufacturer/importer.

Inasmuch as the dealers were duly registered with the department, the invoices issued by them are required to be held as eligible cenvatable invoices. The Commissioner(A) also took note of the subsequent Notification No. 30/2016-CE (NT) dated 28.06.2016 which specified that if a person is registered as a First stage dealer and also as an importer, he is not required to take separate registrations for both. He concluded that the said notification is a trade facilitation measure and, therefore, clarificatory. The denial of credit was held to be improper.

As mentioned, Revenue is before the CESTAT and contends that the notification 30/2016-CE(NT) is not applicable for the period prior to its issuance.

The Bench observed -

"5. Though I agree with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the said notification is in the nature of trade facilitation measure but otherwise also I find that the denial of credit is not justified on the sole ground that the importer, who had supplied the goods to the First Stage dealer was not registered with the Central Excise department. The respondent had availed the credit on the basis of invoice issued by the dealer who was admittedly registered with the Revenue and their registration no. along with all other particulars were duly reflected in the invoice. As the respondent have availed credit on the basis of invoice issued by the dealer which fulfilled all the conditions of availing credit, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals)…"

The Revenue appeal was rejected.

In passing:

For more on the issue, kindly see -

+ Single Registration for Importer and Trader - CBEC Issues Notification and Circular in DDT 2878/29.06.2016 , 2852/24.05.2016

+ CBEC Circular No. 1032/20/2016-CX, Dated: June 28, 2016

+ CBEC F.No 201/04/2016-CX.6., Dated: May 23, 2016

+ Are two registrations required under CE Law for a dealer? [12.02.2016]

+ CX - Importers issuing Cenvattable invoices - Double Registration? Mumbai Chief Commissioner's Clarification: DDT 2835/30.06.2014.

(See 2018-TIOL-08-CESTAT-MUM)